MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2986999055 · doi:10.1001/jama.2019.17379

Development of Risk Prediction Equations for Incident Chronic Kidney Disease

2019· article· en· W2986999055 on OpenAlexaff
Robert G. Nelson, Morgan E. Grams, Shoshana H. Ballew, Yingying Sang, Fereidoun Azizi, Steven J. Chadban, Layal Chaker, Stephan Dunning, Caroline S. Fox, Yoshihisa Hirakawa, Kunitoshi Iseki, Joachim H. Ix, Tazeen H. Jafar, Anna Köttgen, David Naimark, Takayoshi Ohkubo, Gordon Prescott, Casey M. Rebholz, Charumathi Sabanayagam, Toshimi Sairenchi, Ben Schöttker, Yugo Shibagaki, Marcello Tonelli, Luxia Zhang, Ron T. Gansevoort, Kunihiro Matsushita, Mark Woodward, Josef Coresh, Varda Shalev

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Kidney Disease and Diabetes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Hospital
FundersNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney DiseasesSwedish Orphan Biovitrum
KeywordsMedicineKidney diseaseDiabetes mellitusBody mass indexRenal functionInternal medicineType 2 diabetesDiseaseEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Importance: Early identification of individuals at elevated risk of developing chronic kidney disease (CKD) could improve clinical care through enhanced surveillance and better management of underlying health conditions. Objective: To develop assessment tools to identify individuals at increased risk of CKD, defined by reduced estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). Design, Setting, and Participants: Individual-level data analysis of 34 multinational cohorts from the CKD Prognosis Consortium including 5 222 711 individuals from 28 countries. Data were collected from April 1970 through January 2017. A 2-stage analysis was performed, with each study first analyzed individually and summarized overall using a weighted average. Because clinical variables were often differentially available by diabetes status, models were developed separately for participants with diabetes and without diabetes. Discrimination and calibration were also tested in 9 external cohorts (n = 2 253 540). Exposures: Demographic and clinical factors. Main Outcomes and Measures: Incident eGFR of less than 60 mL/min/1.73 m2. Results: Among 4 441 084 participants without diabetes (mean age, 54 years, 38% women), 660 856 incident cases (14.9%) of reduced eGFR occurred during a mean follow-up of 4.2 years. Of 781 627 participants with diabetes (mean age, 62 years, 13% women), 313 646 incident cases (40%) occurred during a mean follow-up of 3.9 years. Equations for the 5-year risk of reduced eGFR included age, sex, race/ethnicity, eGFR, history of cardiovascular disease, ever smoker, hypertension, body mass index, and albuminuria concentration. For participants with diabetes, the models also included diabetes medications, hemoglobin A1c, and the interaction between the 2. The risk equations had a median C statistic for the 5-year predicted probability of 0.845 (interquartile range [IQR], 0.789-0.890) in the cohorts without diabetes and 0.801 (IQR, 0.750-0.819) in the cohorts with diabetes. Calibration analysis showed that 9 of 13 study populations (69%) had a slope of observed to predicted risk between 0.80 and 1.25. Discrimination was similar in 18 study populations in 9 external validation cohorts; calibration showed that 16 of 18 (89%) had a slope of observed to predicted risk between 0.80 and 1.25. Conclusions and Relevance: Equations for predicting risk of incident chronic kidney disease developed from more than 5 million individuals from 34 multinational cohorts demonstrated high discrimination and variable calibration in diverse populations. Further study is needed to determine whether use of these equations to identify individuals at risk of developing chronic kidney disease will improve clinical care and patient outcomes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.186
Threshold uncertainty score0.500

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations243
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAMASame topicChronic Kidney Disease and DiabetesFrench-language works237,207