Membranous nephropathy: thinking through the therapeutic options
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Idiopathic membranous nephropathy (IMN) remains the most common cause of the nephrotic syndrome in adults and one of the leading identifiable causes of end-stage kidney disease. Prior to considering the best approach to treatment, three important components need to be considered. First, the natural history of the typical membranous patient today; second, the importance of identifying the causative factors; and third, the integration of the current data on the known autoantibody/antigen systems involved in IMN into the diagnosis and management of the patient. Combining this with information on the known indicators associated with a poor prognosis plus new data on surrogate markers that provide important clues that the treatment plan is correct has provided us with a more secure platform for choosing the right treatment for each patient. This already provides a more rational and precise approach to the use of our current therapeutic options. Even today, we can slow disease progression and in the future new approaches and new therapies are likely to lead to prevention of progression or even reversal of the injury in IMN, thereby leading to improved quality of life of our patients.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".