Improvement of Outcomes in Patients with Lupus Nephritis: Management Evolution in Chinese Patients from 1994 to 2010
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess how the longterm outcomes have changed over the past decades in Chinese patients with lupus nephritis (LN). The trends in patient manifestation at presentation, treatment pattern, and therapeutic effects were evaluated. METHODS: A cohort of biopsy-proven patients with LN (n = 1945) from January 1994 to December 2010 was analyzed. Treatment regimens, treatment response, renal relapse, and renal outcome were compared at different time periods (1994-1998, 1999-2004, and 2005-2010). RESULTS: Patients in the later periods had shorter duration of disease, lower serum creatinine value and chronicity at biopsy, and more frequent followup. They were more likely to receive standard-of-care therapies, which included cyclophosphamide, mycophenolate mofetil, and combination therapy. Patients in the later periods had higher probabilities of achieving remission (p < 0.001) and lower probabilities of experiencing renal flare (p = 0.007). The 5-year renal survival rates were 92.6%, 90.6%, and 94.3% in 1994-1998, 1999-2004, and 2005-2010, respectively. The 5-year risk of endstage renal disease (ESRD) did not differ between 1994-1998 and 1999-2004, but was significantly lower in 2005-2010 (HR 0.40, 95% CI 0.19-0.85 vs 1999-2004). In multivariable Cox analysis, standard therapy was independently associated with lower risk of ESRD (adjusted HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.52-0.98, p = 0.04). Variables of renal damage at biopsy (renal function, activity index, and chronicity index) were independently associated with poor outcome. CONCLUSION: The outcomes of Chinese patients with LN have improved from 1994 to 2010. With the increased use of standard therapies, the remission rates have increased and renal relapse has decreased.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".