Association Between Newborn Metabolic Profiles and Pediatric Kidney Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Metabolomics offers considerable promise in early disease detection. We set out to test the hypothesis that routine newborn metabolic profiles at birth, obtained through screening for inborn errors of metabolism, would be associated with kidney disease and add incremental information to known clinical risk factors. METHODS: We conducted a population-level cohort study in Ontario, Canada, using metabolic profiles from 1,288,905 newborns from 2006 to 2015. The primary outcome was chronic kidney disease (CKD) or dialysis. Individual metabolites and their ratio combinations were examined by logistic regression after adjustment for established risk factors for kidney disease and incremental risk prediction measured. RESULTS: CKD occurred in 2086 (0.16%, median time 612 days) and dialysis in 641 (0.05%, median time 99 days) infants and children. Individual metabolites consisted of amino acids, acylcarnitines, markers of fatty acid oxidation, and others. Base models incorporating clinical risk factors only provided c-statistics of 0.61 for CKD and 0.70 for dialysis. The addition of identified metabolites to risk prediciton models resulted in significant incremental improvement in the performance of both models (CKD model: c-statistic 0.66 NRI 0.36 IDI 0.04, dialysis model: c-statistic 0.77 NRI 0.57 IDI 0.09). This was consistent after internal validation using bootstrapping and a sensitivity analysis excluding outcomes within the first 30 days. CONCLUSION: Routinely collected screening metabolites at birth are associated with CKD and the need for dialytic therapies in infants and children, and add incremental information to traditional clinical risk factors.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".