MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2617709648 · doi:10.1093/ndt/gfx145.sp259

SP259EFFECTS OF EMPAGLIFLOZIN ON RENAL OUTCOMES ACROSS KDIGO RISK CATEGORIES: RESULTS FROM THE EMPA-REG OUTCOME® TRIAL

2017· article· en· W2617709648 on OpenAlexaff
Christoph Wanner, Adeera Levin, Vlado Perkovic, Audrey Koitka‐Weber, Michaela Mattheus, Maximilian von Eynatten, David C. Wheeler

Bibliographic record

VenueNephrology Dialysis Transplantation · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics
TopicPharmacovigilance and Adverse Drug Reactions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmpagliflozinEMPAMedicineOutcome (game theory)Internal medicineIntensive care medicineDiabetes mellitusType 2 diabetesEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION AND AIMS: In the EMPA-REG OUTCOME® trial, empagliflozin (EMPA) given in addition to standard of care significantly reduced the risk of incident or worsening nephropathy (progression to urine albumin-creatinine ratio [UACR] >300 mg/g, doubling of serum creatinine level, initiation of renal replacement therapy, or death from renal disease) by 39% versus placebo (PBO) in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and established cardiovascular disease. The Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) chronic kidney disease (CKD) classification provides a renal risk prediction framework, using estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and UACR. We assessed renal outcomes in the EMPA-REG OUTCOME® trial in participants across each of the two-dimensional risk categories for progression of CKD. METHODS: Participants were randomized to receive EMPA 10 mg, EMPA 25 mg, or PBO. Renal function was assessed by the creatinine-based GFR estimating equations based on Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) formula. The renal outcome of incident or worsening nephropathy and its components were analyzed in subgroups by baseline KDIGO risk category, defined as low risk (eGFR ≥60 ml/min/1.73m2 and UACR <30 mg/g), moderately increased risk (eGFR 45-59 ml/min/1.73m2 and UACR <30 mg/g, or eGFR ≥60 ml/min/1.73m2 and UACR 30-300 mg/g), high risk (eGFR 30-44 ml/min/1.73m2 and UACR <30 mg/g, eGFR 45-59 ml/min/1.73m2 and UACR 30-300 mg/g, or eGFR ≥60 and UACR >300 mg/g), and very high risk (eGFR <30 ml/min/1.73m2 with any UACR, eGFR 30-44 and UACR 30-300 mg/g, or eGFR 45-59 ml/min/1.73m2 and UACR >300 mg/g]). A Cox proportional hazards model was used to investigate the consistency of treatment effect across subgroups. RESULTS: Among 7020 participants, baseline eGFR and UACR measurements were available for 6952 patients (99%; EMPA, n=4635; PBO, n=2317). The proportions of participants in the low, moderately increased, high and very high risk KDIGO categories at baseline were 47%, 29%, 15% and 8%, respectively. Median observation time was 3.1 years. The observed benefits of EMPA vs PBO on incident or worsening nephropathy, progression to UACR >300 mg/g and the composite of hard renal endpoints (doubling of serum creatinine, initiation of renal replacement therapy, or death from renal disease) were consistent across KDIGO risk categories (Figure). SP259 Figure

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.103
GPT teacher head0.447
Teacher spread0.344 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNephrology Dialysis TransplantationSame topicPharmacovigilance and Adverse Drug ReactionsFrench-language works237,207