Evaluating a New International Risk-Prediction Tool in IgA Nephropathy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Importance: Although IgA nephropathy (IgAN) is the most common glomerulonephritis in the world, there is no validated tool to predict disease progression. This limits patient-specific risk stratification and treatment decisions, clinical trial recruitment, and biomarker validation. Objective: To derive and externally validate a prediction model for disease progression in IgAN that can be applied at the time of kidney biopsy in multiple ethnic groups worldwide. Design, Setting, and Participants: We derived and externally validated a prediction model using clinical and histologic risk factors that are readily available in clinical practice. Large, multi-ethnic cohorts of adults with biopsy-proven IgAN were included from Europe, North America, China, and Japan. Main Outcomes and Measures: Cox proportional hazards models were used to analyze the risk of a 50% decline in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) or end-stage kidney disease, and were evaluated using the R2D measure, Akaike information criterion (AIC), C statistic, continuous net reclassification improvement (NRI), integrated discrimination improvement (IDI), and calibration plots. Results: The study included 3927 patients; mean age, 35.4 (interquartile range, 28.0-45.4) years; and 2173 (55.3%) were men. The following prediction models were created in a derivation cohort of 2781 patients: a clinical model that included eGFR, blood pressure, and proteinuria at biopsy; and 2 full models that also contained the MEST histologic score, age, medication use, and either racial/ethnic characteristics (white, Japanese, or Chinese) or no racial/ethnic characteristics, to allow application in other ethnic groups. Compared with the clinical model, the full models with and without race/ethnicity had better R2D (26.3% and 25.3%, respectively, vs 20.3%) and AIC (6338 and 6379, respectively, vs 6485), significant increases in C statistic from 0.78 to 0.82 and 0.81, respectively (ΔC, 0.04; 95% CI, 0.03-0.04 and ΔC, 0.03; 95% CI, 0.02-0.03, respectively), and significant improvement in reclassification as assessed by the NRI (0.18; 95% CI, 0.07-0.29 and 0.51; 95% CI, 0.39-0.62, respectively) and IDI (0.07; 95% CI, 0.06-0.08 and 0.06; 95% CI, 0.05-0.06, respectively). External validation was performed in a cohort of 1146 patients. For both full models, the C statistics (0.82; 95% CI, 0.81-0.83 with race/ethnicity; 0.81; 95% CI, 0.80-0.82 without race/ethnicity) and R2D (both 35.3%) were similar or better than in the validation cohort, with excellent calibration. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, the 2 full prediction models were shown to be accurate and validated methods for predicting disease progression and patient risk stratification in IgAN in multi-ethnic cohorts, with additional applications to clinical trial design and biomarker research.
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 | 0.025 | 0.073 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".