Glomerular Filtration Rate Trends During Follow-up in Children With Steroid-Sensitive Nephrotic Syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Overall prognosis of children with steroid-sensitive nephrotic syndrome (SSNS) is regarded as generally favorable. However, only a few recent studies have evaluated changes in kidney function and blood pressure over time in children with SSNS. Objectives: We describe clinical features of SSNS patients and characterize changes in calculated estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and use of antihypertensive medications during follow-up. Design: This is a retrospective cohort study. Setting: This study was conducted in a Canadian pediatric nephrology center. Patients: This study included patients aged 1 to 18 years with SSNS. Measurements: eGFR was calculated from recorded serum creatinine and height measurements using the modified Schwartz equation. Methods: eGFR was calculated at yearly intervals, and the trend of eGFR was assessed using linear mixed effects model. Patients were also evaluated for use of antihypertensive medications during follow-up. Results: Seventy-eight patients—median age, 3.2 years (interquartile range [IQR], 2.65) and median follow-up of 4.37 (IQR, 5.6)—were evaluated. Sixty-three (80.8%) had at least 1 relapse. Twenty-two (28.2%) and 20 (25.6%) were steroid dependent and frequently relapsing, respectively. Forty-three patients (55.1%) received at least 1 steroid-sparing agent, and of these, 18 (41.8%) received a calcineurin inhibitor. One patient had eGFR ≤90 mL/min/1.73 m 2 during observation. eGFR remained unchanged over the follow-up period in this cohort of patients. Four patients (5.1%) were on antihypertensive medications at the end of follow-up. Limitations: Patients who had frequent relapses had more measurements available for serum creatinine and height, creating a sampling bias. The number of eGFR measurements was overall small, making it difficult to ascertain eGFR trend. Conclusion: eGFR remained unchanged over time in this cohort, and a small proportion of patients required antihypertensive therapy at the end of follow-up. Our study highlights the needs for carefully constructed long-term observational studies of children with nephrotic syndrome.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".