MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2340386927 · doi:10.1053/j.ajkd.2016.02.052

Smoking and Adverse Outcomes in Patients With CKD: The Study of Heart and Renal Protection (SHARP)

2016· article· en· W2340386927 on OpenAlexaff
Natalie Staplin, Richard Haynes, William G. Herrington, Christina Reith, Alan Cass, Bengt Fellström, Lixin Jiang, Bertram L. Kasiske, Vera Krane, Adeera Levin, Robert Walker, Christoph Wanner, David C. Wheeler, Martin Landray, Colin Baigent, Jonathan Emberson, Charles Tomson, Jonathan C. Craig, Bruce Neal, Lai Seong Hooi, Lawrence Y. Agodoa, Mike Gaziano, Ziad A. Massy, Bo Feldt‐Rasmussen, Udom Krairittichai, Vuddidhej Ophascharoensuk, Hallvard Holdaas, Vladimı́r Tesař, Andrzej Więcek, Diederick E. Grobbee, Dick de Zeeuw, Carola Grönhagen‐Riska, Tanaji Dasgupta, David Lewis, Marion Mafham, William Majoni, Karl Wallendszus, Richard H. Grimm, Terje Pedersen, Jonathan A. Tobert, Jane Armitage, Alex Baxter, Christopher Bray, Yiping Chen, Zhengming Chen, Michael Hill, Carol Knott, Sarah Parish, David Simpson, Peter Sleight, Rory Collins

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Kidney Diseases · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Kidney Disease and Diabetes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersMedical Research CouncilUniversity of OxfordBritish Heart Foundation
KeywordsMedicineRelative riskInternal medicineKidney diseaseIncidence (geometry)Renal functionDialysisRisk factorConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The absolute and relative importance of smoking to vascular and nonvascular outcomes in people with chronic kidney disease (CKD), as well its relevance to kidney disease progression, is uncertain. STUDY DESIGN: Observational study. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: 9,270 participants with CKD enrolled in SHARP. PREDICTOR: Baseline smoking status (current, former, and never). OUTCOMES: Vascular events, site-specific cancer, ESRD, rate of change in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), and cause-specific mortality. RESULTS: At baseline, 1,243 (13%) participants were current smokers (median consumption, 10 cigarettes/day); 3,272 (35%), former smokers; and 4,755 (51%), never smokers. Median follow-up was 4.9 years. Vascular event rates were 36% higher for current than never smokers (2,317 events; relative risk [RR], 1.36; 95% CI, 1.19-1.55), reflecting increases in both atherosclerotic (RR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.26-1.76) and nonatherosclerotic (RR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.05-1.50) events. Cancer was 37% higher among current smokers (632 events; RR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.07-1.76), with the biggest RRs for lung (RR, 9.31; 95% CI, 4.37-19.83) and upper aerodigestive tract (RR, 4.87; 95% CI, 2.10-11.32) cancers. For 6,245 patients not receiving dialysis at baseline, ESRD incidence did not differ significantly between current and never smokers (2,141 events; RR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.89-1.17), nor did estimated rate of change in eGFR (current smokers, -1.77±0.14 [SE]; never smokers, -1.70±0.07mL/min/1.73m(2) per year). All-cause mortality was 48% higher among current smokers (2,257 events; RR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.30-1.70), with significant increases in vascular (RR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.07-1.69) and nonvascular (RR, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.34-1.91) causes of death, especially cancer (RR, 2.32; 95% CI, 1.58-3.40) and respiratory (RR, 2.25; 95% CI, 1.51-3.35) mortality. LIMITATIONS: Smoking status not assessed during follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: In this study of patients with CKD, smoking significantly increased the risks for vascular and nonvascular morbidity and mortality, but was not associated with kidney disease progression. The associations with vascular and neoplastic disease are in keeping with those observed in the general population and are likely modifiable by cessation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.229 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations86
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Kidney DiseasesSame topicChronic Kidney Disease and DiabetesFrench-language works237,207