Moderator’s view: Predictive models: a prelude to precision nephrology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Appropriate diagnosis is fundamental in medicine because it sets the basis for the prediction of disease outcome at the single patient level (prognosis) and decisions regarding the most appropriate therapy. However, given the large series of social, clinical and biological factors that determine the likelihood of an individual's future outcome, prognosis only partly depends on diagnosis and aetiology and treatment is not decided solely on the basis of the underlying diagnosis. This issue is crucial in multifactorial diseases like atherosclerosis, where the use of statins has now shifted from 'treating hypercholesterolaemia' to 'treating the risk of adverse cardiovascular events'. Approaches that take due account of prognosis limit the lingering risk of over-diagnosis and maximize the value of prognostic information in the clinical decision process. In the nephrology realm, the application of a well-validated risk equation for kidney failure in Canada led to a 35% reduction in new referrals. Prognostic models based on simple clinical data extractable from clinical files have recently been developed to predict all-cause and cardiovascular mortality in end-stage kidney disease patients. However, research on predictive models in renal diseases remains suboptimal and non-accounting for competing events and measurement errors, and a lack of calibration analyses and external validation are common fallacies in currently available studies. More focus on this blossoming research area is desirable. The nephrology community may now start to apply the best validated risk scores and further test their potential usefulness in chronic kidney disease patients in diverse clinical situations and geographical areas.
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 | 0.127 | 0.499 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.022 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.029 | 0.007 |
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".