Acute renal failure in paediatric systemic lupus erythematosus: treatment and outcome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the outcome of paediatric SLE (pSLE) patients with nephritis who developed acute renal failure (ARF). Efficacy and safety of treatment regimens were compared. METHODS: A total of 249 pSLE patients were diagnosed and prospectively followed at a single centre between July 1973 and July 2003; 127 children (51%) had lupus nephritis. ARF was defined as serum creatinine of > 250 micromol/l or > 75% above baseline. Standardized assessments included clinical data and medications, laboratory testing, disease activity and damage scores were obtained. Subsequent renal flares were documented. PRIMARY OUTCOME: renal function at last follow-up. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: treatment efficacy and safety. AZA- and cyclophosphamide (CYCLO)-treated patients were compared. Propensity score methods were applied to balance covariates. An intention to treat approach was chosen. RESULTS: The ARF study cohort included 50 patients; 13 boys and 37 girls with a median age of 13.2 yrs at diagnosis and a mean follow-up of 45 months. Renal histology: Class III nephritis in 16; Class IV in 34. Dialysis requirement and disease activity were similar in both groups. TREATMENT: AZA in 33 patients, CYCLO in 9 and corticosteroids only in 8. OUTCOME: no statistically significant or clinically relevant differences were found for any of the outcome measures including last serum creatinine, time to renal flare, overall renal survival, disease activity over time, disease damage, mean annual corticosteroid dose and rate of infection. CONCLUSION: The treatment of renal failure in this pSLE cohort was associated with an excellent outcome. AZA and CYCLO were equally efficacious.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".