The Canadian childhood nephrotic syndrome (CHILDNEPH) study: report on mid-study feasibility, recruitment and main measures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To assess reasons for continuing practice variation in the management of childhood nephrotic syndrome despite expert reviews and guidelines, we are conducting a longitudinal cohort study in children with glucocorticoid sensitive nephrotic syndrome. Objectives of this mid-study report are to describe patient and physician recruitment characteristics, glucocorticoid prescriptions, use of second line agents, biopsy practices, and adherence to study protocol. METHODS: Children with new onset nephrotic syndrome and providers are being recruited from all 12 pediatric nephrology centres across Canada with > 2½ years follow-up. Data collection points of observation are over a minimum 36 months. Details of prescribed glucocorticoids and of all second line agents used during treatment are being collected. All relapses are being recorded with time to urinary remission of proteinuria. RESULTS: To date, 243 patients (57.1% male) from 12 centres were included. Median number of patients per centre was 29 (range 2-45), and median age of cohort was 7.3 (IQR 4.2) at enrollment. Forty-eight physicians were recruited, median 5 (range 2-8) per site. Median number of relapses per patient year of follow-up was 2.1 (IQR 4). Cumulative dose variability of glucocorticoids prescribed per episode of proteinuria and length of treatment was observed between participating centres. CONCLUSION: The Canadian pediatric nephrology community established a longitudinal childhood nephrotic syndrome cohort study that confirms ongoing practice variability. The study will help to evaluate its impact on patient outcomes, and facilitate clinical trial implementation in nephrotic syndrome.
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 | 0.024 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".