Time to Recovery from Proteinuria in Patients with Lupus Nephritis Receiving Standard Treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The recovery time from abnormal levels of proteinuria with standard treatment in longitudinal studies of patients with systemic lupus erythematosus has not been well described. We aimed (1) to determine the recovery time from proteinuria in patients with lupus nephritis (LN) receiving standard treatment, and (2) to determine whether the initial level of proteinuria predicts time to improvement. METHODS: We studied all patients with LN recorded in the database from 1970 until 2011. Proteinuria was defined as ≥0.5 g/24 h. Patients were grouped as follows: group 1 having 0.5-0.9 g/day, group 2 having 1-1.9 g/day, and group 3 having ≥2 g/day. Recovery from proteinuria was defined as proteinuria<0.5 g/24 h. Time to recovery from proteinuria was studied with the Kaplan-Meier curves. Factors associated with proteinuria recovery were evaluated using proportional hazard models. RESULTS: Among the 212 patients studied, 52% recovered from proteinuria within 2 years and an additional 22% recovered within 5 years, for a total of 74%. The level of proteinuria at baseline visit predicted the time to improvement. Patients with a higher level of proteinuria at baseline needed a longer time to normalize their proteinuria. Male sex, hypocomplementemia, high level of proteinuria at diagnosis of LN, and disease duration>5 years at onset of LN each independently predicted late recovery of proteinuria and had an effect on the percentage of patients who recovered. CONCLUSION: The tempo of recovery from proteinuria in LN is slow and the level of proteinuria at baseline visit predicts the time to complete recovery.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".