Sustained complete renal remission is a predictor of reduced mortality, chronic kidney disease and end-stage renal disease in lupus nephritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective The objective of this paper is to identify the relationship between patients with lupus nephritis (LN) who achieve sustained complete renal remission (CR) and renal outcome and survival. Methods From a longitudinal cohort study we identified patients with LN with CR. We compared the outcomes of patients who achieved sustained CR for at least five years (Group A) with those less than five years (Group B). The outcomes were death, SLICC/ACR damage index (SDI), renal flare, end-stage renal disease (ESRD) or estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) < 50 ml/min, and doubling of serum creatinine. Regression analyses were used to identify predictors of the outcomes. Results A total of 345 patients were identified, 132 patients in Group A and 213 patients in Group B. The duration of CR in Group A was 11.76 ± 7.34 years but only 1.24 ± 1.24 years in Group B ( p < 0.001). Death, increasing renal SDI, renal flare, renal transplantation, ESRD or eGFR < 50 ml/min, and doubling of serum creatinine in Group A were significantly lower than Group B. Multivariable analysis revealed that Group A patients were at a lower risk of death (hazard ratio (HR) = 0.20; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.07-0.61; p = 0.004), increasing renal SDI (HR = 0.41; 95% CI, 0.21-0.76; p = 0.01), developing ESRD or eGFR < 50 ml/min (HR = 0.27; 95% CI, 0.12-0.61; p = 0.001), and doubling of serum creatinine (HR = 0.29; 95% CI, 0.14-0.61; p = 0.001) compared with Group B. Conclusion Sustained CR for at least five years is a predictor of better prognosis in patients with LN.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".