MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2917786427 · doi:10.1016/j.ekir.2019.02.010

Estimating GFR by Serum Creatinine, Cystatin C, and β2-Microglobulin in Older Adults: Results From the Canadian Study of Longevity in Type 1 Diabetes

2019· article· en· W2917786427 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Daniel Scarr, Petter Bjornstad, Leif E. Lovblom, Julie A. Lovshin, Geneviève Boulet, Yuliya Lytvyn, Mohammed A. Farooqi, Vesta Lai, Andrej Orszag, Alanna Weisman, Hillary A. Keenan, Michael H. Brent, Narinder Paul, Vera Bril, David Z.I. Cherney, Bruce A. Perkins

Bibliographic record

VenueKidney International Reports · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Kidney Disease and Diabetes
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of TorontoLunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research InstituteMount Sinai Hospital
FundersBritish Association for PsychopharmacologyCanadian Diabetes AssociationNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney DiseasesJuvenile Diabetes Research Foundation CanadaMorris Animal Foundation
KeywordsMedicineRenal functionCystatin CCreatinineLongevityBeta-2 microglobulinInternal medicineDiabetes mellitusUrologyEndocrinologyGerontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction Glomerular filtration rate (GFR) is routinely used for clinical assessment of kidney function. However, the accuracy of estimating equations in older adults is uncertain. Methods In 66 adults with ≥50 years type 1 diabetes (T1D) duration and 73 nondiabetic controls from age/sex-matched subgroups (65 ± 8 years old and 77[55%] were women) we evaluated the performance of estimated GFR (eGFR) by creatinine (Modification of Diet and Renal Disease [MDRD], Chronic Kidney Disease–Epidemiology [CKD-EPI] cr ), cystatin C (CKD-EPI cys , CKD-EPI cr-cys ), and β 2 -microglobulin (β2M) compared with measured GFR by inulin clearance (mGFR). Performance was evaluated using metrics of bias (mean difference), precision (SD), and accuracy (proportion of eGFR that differed by >20% of mGFR). Results Mean mGFR was 104 ± 18 ml/min per 1.73 m 2 (range: 70–154 ml/min per 1.73 m 2 ) and was not different between T1D and controls (103 ± 17 vs. 105 ± 19 ml/min per 1.73 m 2 , P = 0.39). All equations significantly underestimated mGFR (bias: −15 to −30 ml/min per 1.73 m 2 , P < 0.001 for all comparisons) except for β2M, which had bias of 1.9 ml/min per 1.73 m 2 ( P = 0.61). Bias was greatest in cystatin C–based equations. Precision was lowest for β2M (SD: 43.5 ml/min per 1.73 m 2 , P < 0.001 for each comparison). Accuracy was lowest for CKD-EPI cysC (69.1%, P < 0.001 for each comparison). Cystatin C–based equations demonstrated greater bias and lower accuracy in older age subgroups (<60, 60–69, ≥70 years). All equations demonstrated greater bias across higher ranges of mGFR (60–89, 90–119, ≥120 ml/min per 1.73 m 2 ). Results were similar between T1D and controls except that β2M had lower performance in T1D. Conclusion Better estimates of GFR in older adults are needed for research and clinical practice, as this subgroup of the population has an amplified risk for the development of chronic kidney disease (CKD) that requires accurate GFR estimation methods.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.091

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.246 · 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

Citations22
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueKidney International ReportsSame topicChronic Kidney Disease and DiabetesFrench-language works237,207