MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2808540863 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0198456

Individual patient variability with the application of the kidney failure risk equation in advanced chronic kidney disease

2018· article· en· W2808540863 on OpenAlexaff
Christopher R. McCudden, Ayub Akbari, Christine A. White, Mohan Biyani, Swapnil Hiremath, Pierre Antoine Brown, Navdeep Tangri, Scott Brimble, Greg Knoll, Peter G. Blake, Manish M. Sood

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Kidney Disease and Diabetes
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalUniversity of ManitobaWestern UniversitySeven Oaks General HospitalLondon Health Sciences CentreMcMaster UniversityQueen's UniversityUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineKidney diseaseCoefficient of variationRenal functionInternal medicineDialysisCreatinineUrologyStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Kidney Failure Risk Equation (KFRE) predicts the need for dialysis or transplantation using age, sex, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), and urine albumin to creatinine ratio (ACR). The eGFR and ACR have known biological and analytical variability. We examined the effect of biological and analytical variability of eGFR and ACR on the 2-year KFRE predicted kidney failure probabilities using single measure and the average of repeat measures of simulated eGFR and ACR. Previously reported values for coefficient of variation (CV) for ACR and eGFR were used to calculate day to day variability. Variation was also examined with outpatient laboratory data from patients with an eGFR between 15 and 50 mL/min/1.72 m2. A web application was developed to calculate and model day to day variation in risk. The biological and analytical variability related to ACR and eGFR lead to variation in the predicted probability of kidney failure. A male patient age 50, ACR 30 mg/mmol and eGFR 25, had a day to day variation in risk of 7% (KFRE point estimate: 17%, variability range 14% to 21%). The addition of inter laboratory variation due to different instrumentation increased the variability to 9% (KFRE point estimate 17%, variability range 13% to 22%). Averaging of repeated measures of eGFR and ACR significantly decreased the variability (KFRE point estimate 17%, variability range 15% to 19%). These findings were consistent when using outpatient laboratory data which showed that most patients had a KFRE 2-year risk variability of ≤ 5% (79% of patients). Approximately 13% of patients had variability from 5-10% and 8% had variability > 10%. The mean age (SD) of this cohort was 64 (15) years, 36% were females, the mean (SD) eGFR was 32 (10) ml/min/1.73m2 and median (IQR) ACR was 22.7 (110). Biological and analytical variation intrinsic to the eGFR and ACR may lead to a substantial degree of variability that decreases with repeat measures. Use of a web application may help physicians and patients understand individual patient's risk variability and communicate risk (https://mccudden.shinyapps.io/kfre_app/). The web application allows the user to alter age, gender, eGFR, ACR, CV (for both eGFR and ACR) as well as units of measurements for ACR (g/mol versus mg/g).

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.052
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.078

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.052
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.210 · 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

Citations10
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONE→Same topicChronic Kidney Disease and Diabetes→French-language works237,207→