Membranous Nephropathy: Quantifying Remission Duration on Outcome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although change in proteinuria has been proposed as a surrogate for long-term prognosis in membranous nephropathy (MGN), variability in proteinuria levels and lag between these changes and acceptable end points, such as ESRD, has limited its utility. This cohort study examined the prognostic significance of remission duration in 376 patients with biopsy-proven idiopathic/primary MGN who achieved a remission after a period of nephrotic-range proteinuria. We defined complete remission (CR), partial remission (PR), and relapse as proteinuria ≤0.3, 0.4-3.4, and ≥3.5 g/d after CR or PR, respectively. The exposure variable was the remission status of patients at fixed landmarks (3, 6, 12, 24, and 36 months) after the date of first remission. The primary outcome was ESRD or 50% reduction in eGFR. We fitted Cox proportional hazards models to examine the association of remission status at each landmark and the primary end point. Persistent remission associated with unadjusted hazard ratios for the primary outcome that ranged by landmark from 0.35 (95% confidence interval, 0.20 to 0.61) to 0.56 (95% confidence interval, 0.31 to 1.04). Separate analyses for PR and CR yielded similar results. After adjustment, maintaining remission associated with significantly reduced risk of the primary outcome at all landmarks. Durable remissions associated with improved renal survival. Although the longer the remission, the greater the improvement, patients with remission durations as short as 3 months had improved renal prognosis compared with patients who relapsed. This study validates and quantifies PR and CR as surrogates for long-term outcome in MGN.
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 | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".