Predicting 5-Year Risk of RRT in Stage 3 or 4 CKD: Development and External Validation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and objectives Only a minority of patients with CKD progress to renal failure. Despite the potential benefits of risk stratification in the CKD population, risk prediction models are not routinely used. Our objective was to develop and externally validate a clinically useful and pragmatic prediction model for the 5-year risk of progression to RRT in stage 3 or 4 CKD. Design, setting, participants, & measurements We used a retrospective cohort design. The development cohort consisted of 22,460 Kaiser Permanente Northwest members with stage 3 or 4 CKD (baseline 2002–2008). The validation cohort consisted of 16,553 Kaiser Permanente Colorado members with stage 3–4 CKD (baseline 2006–2008). The final model included eight predictors: age, sex, eGFR, hemoglobin, proteinuria/albuminuria, systolic BP, antihypertensive medication use, and diabetes and its complications. Results In the Northwest and Colorado cohorts, there were 737 and 360 events, and observed 5-year Kaplan–Meier risks of 4.72% (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 4.38 to 5.06) and 2.57% (95% CI, 2.30 to 2.83), respectively. Our prediction model performed extremely well in the development cohort, with a c-statistic of 0.96, an R 2 of 79.7%, and good calibration. We had similarly good performance in the external validation cohort, with a c-statistic of 0.95, R 2 of 81.2%, and good calibration. In the external validation cohort, the observed risk was slightly lower than the predicted risk in the highest-risk quintile. Using the top quintile of predicted risk as a cutpoint gave a sensitivity of 92.2%. Conclusions We developed a pragmatic prediction model and risk score for predicting the 5-year RRT risk in stage 3 and 4 CKD. This model uses variables that are typically available in routine primary care settings, and can be used to help guide important decisions such as timing of referral to nephrology and fistula placement.
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 | 0.061 | 0.065 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".