Development of Risk Prediction Equations for Incident Chronic Kidney Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.011 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".