The Crescentic Implication of Renal Outcomes in Proliferative Lupus Nephritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the association between crescents and renal outcomes, and the implications on therapeutic choices. METHODS: There were 231 patients with biopsy-proven proliferative lupus nephritis (PLN) who were divided into 4 groups: 59 patients were in the noncrescent group (NC); 59 patients exclusively with segmental crescents were in the segmental crescent group (SC); patients with circumferential crescents were categorized into 2 groups according to the crescentic ratio (C1 had 64 patients with ≤ 25%, and C2 had 49 patients with > 25%). Their baseline laboratory tests, histopathological manifestations, and outcomes were compared. RESULTS: Remission rates in NC, SC, C1, and C2 groups were 92.1%, 85.4%, 95.0%, and 76.1%, respectively. Fewer patients in the C2 group achieved complete remission than the other 3 groups. For longterm outcomes evaluated by serum creatinine (SCr) doubling or endstage renal disease (ESRD), the renal survival rate was lowest in the C2 group (p = 0.003). Including clinical and pathological variables in the Cox proportional hazard regression model separately, the multivariate analysis revealed that these were independent risk factors for SCr doubling or ESRD: baseline SCr (with every 1 mg/dl increase: HR = 1.834, 95% CI 1.465-2.296; p < 0.001), hemoglobin (with every 1 g/l increase: HR = 0.970, 95% CI 0.947-0.992; p = 0.009), the proportions of cellular crescents (with every 1% increase: HR = 1.040, 95% CI 1.015-1.066; p = 0.002) and fibrocellular crescents (with every 1% increase: HR = 1.085, 95% CI 1.013-1.163; p = 0.020), and severe renal tubular atrophy (HR = 5.348, 95% CI 1.278-22.373; p = 0.022). CONCLUSION: PLN with crescents > 25% had worse renal outcomes both in short and long terms. Proportions of cellular and fibrocellular crescents were independent risk factors for poor renal survival.
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 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".