Focal segmental glomerulosclerosis in mild IgA nephropathy: a clinical-pathologic study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The significance of focal segmental glomerulosclerosis (FSGS) in mild IgA nephropathy is uncertain. METHODS: All consecutive renal biopsies performed between 1996 and 2005 in adults with a diagnosis of mild IgA nephropathy (Lee Grade 1 or 2) at St Paul's Hospital, Vancouver, Canada, were reviewed. RESULTS: Seventy-five patients were included, 26 (35%) with IgA nephropathy and FSGS (FSGS+ group) and 49 (65%) with IgA nephropathy without FSGS (FSGS- group). The mean follow-up was 3 years. At the time of renal biopsy the FSGS+ group had a lower eGFR (60 versus 73 mL/min, P = 0.02), lower serum albumin (38 versus 41 g/L, P = 0.02), higher mean arterial pressure (103 versus 97 mmHg, P = 0.03) and greater protein excretion (3.0 versus 1.3 g/day, P < 0.01) than the FSGS- group. On histology, the FSGS+ group had a higher percentage of obsolete glomeruli (23.4% versus 12.7%, P < 0.01), and 31% of FSGS+ biopsies had >or=25% tubular atrophy/interstitial fibrosis while this was not observed in the FSGS- group (P < 0.01). The primary outcome measure, DeltaGFR, was -2.56 mL/ min/year in the FSGS+ group and +1.14 mL/min/year in the FSGS- group, difference: 3.70 mL/min/year (P = 0.03) (univariate). In the multivariate model, the FSGS+ group declined at 0.19 mL/min/year (-14.16, 13.78) and the FSGS- group improved at 2.85 mL/min/year (-11.64, 17.34), difference 3.04 mL/min/year, P = 0.18. CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that the focal segmental glomerulosclerosis lesion and associated clinical and pathologic findings in patients with mild IgA nephropathy are associated with a worse renal outcome.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".