The interpretation of repeat renal biopsies in patients with lupus nephritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sir, The relevance of repeat kidney biopsy in patients with LN is controversial. Recent recommendations from the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR)/European Renal Association–European Dialysis Transplant Association (ERA-EDTA) state that it provides useful prognostic information, suggesting a 6-month biopsy as an important adjunct to treatment [1, 2]. Given the toxicity of the immunosuppressive agents used in LN, the question remains as to whether persistent histological lesions should lead to a modification in immunosuppressive therapy. From a pathological standpoint, little is known about the time needed to clear immune deposits and proliferation within the kidney after successful treatment. Here we describe the histological evolution of a kidney transplant recipient whose donor was found to have proliferative mesangial LN at the pre-implantation biopsy. It provides a unique opportunity to assess the clearance of immune lesions in a kidney explanted from its lupus environment. The donor was a 50-year old male, who died in a vehicle accident, with a past medical history limited to high blood pressure. Urine sediment showed mild proteinuria, but no haematuria. The pre-implant biopsy showed 4% glomerulosclerosis, moderate mesangial enlargement and mild hypercellularity, tubular atrophy and interstitial fibrosis (Table 1). IF revealed moderate to strong IgG, IgA, IgM, C1q and C3 mesangial staining. EM showed numerous immune complex deposits, mostly mesangial, with rare subepithelial, subendothelial and intramembranous deposits. There was a single lesion suspected of tubuloreticular inclusion in one endothelial cell. This biopsy was thus classified as a mesangial proliferative LN Class II according to the International Society of Nephrology/Renal Pathology Society (ISN/RPS) 2003 classification, with an activity index of 0/24 and a chronicity index of 3/12 [3].
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 | 0.003 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".