Accurate GFR in obesity—protocol for a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Obesity is increasing globally. Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is strongly associated with obesity. Kidney function is commonly estimated with equations using creatinine (such as CKD-EPI equation) which is a product of muscle metabolism. Decisions about categorizing CKD, planning modality of renal replacement therapies, and adjusting dosages of medications excreted by the kidneys are done using these equations. However, it is not well appreciated that creatinine-based equations may not accurately estimate kidney function in obese individuals. We plan a systematic review of diagnostic studies which will compare estimating equations to actual measured kidney function. We will systematically search electronic bibliographic databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library with no restrictions on language or specific dates. The search terms will be adapted for the different databases using a combination of Medical Subject Heading and relevant keywords contained in titles and abstracts. Our preliminary search strategy using Cochrane, MEDLINE, and EMBASE databases have identified 190, 1246, and 1660 citations, respectively. For all studies selected, we will extract information on general study characteristics, study participant (age, sex, ethnicity, weight, height, BMI, BSA), type and protocol of reference standard utilized, the index test studied, the methodology of measurement of index test, categories of GFR, the proportion of eGFR within 10, 20, 30, 40, and 50% of measured GFR, and bias between eGFR and measured GFR. If the quality of methods and risk of bias are adequate, we will perform a meta-analysis. We will assess the heterogeneity using the χ2 and the I2 statistics to examine whether the estimates from studies included could be pooled. Sensitivity and multivariate meta-regression analyses will be performed to assess the effects of clinical factors and socio-demographic characteristics reported in included studies on the meta-analytic estimates. All analysis will be performed using the Comprehensive Meta-analysis software. This systematic review might help to inform clinicians on the best equation to use in patients with obesity and CKD for staging of CKD and for medication dosing. If no equation is deemed suitable, this review will form a basis for future studies of GFR in obese individuals. PROSPERO CRD42018104345
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.033 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.005 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".