MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3023115342 · doi:10.1053/j.ajkd.2019.12.017

Association of NT-proBNP and BNP With Future Clinical Outcomes in Patients With ESKD: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

2020· review· en· W3023115342 on OpenAlexafffund
Tyrone G. Harrison, Caley Shukalek, Brenda R. Hemmelgarn, Kelly B. Zarnke, Paul E. Ronksley, Nicolas Iragorri, Michelle M. Graham, Matthew T. James

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Kidney Diseases · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Failure Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsCanadian VIGOUR CentreLibin Cardiovascular Institute of AlbertaUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of Calgary
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchKidney Foundation of CanadaUniversity of Calgary
KeywordsMedicineMeta-analysisInternal medicineIntensive care medicineNatriuretic peptideMEDLINEHeart failure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: Use of brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) and N-terminal pro-BNP (NT-proBNP) for cardiovascular (CV) risk assessment in patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) remains unclear. We examined the associations between different threshold elevations of these peptide levels and clinical outcomes in patients with ESKD. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. SETTING & STUDY POPULATIONS: or receiving maintenance dialysis). SELECTION CRITERIA FOR STUDIES: Studies that reported NT-proBNP or BNP levels and future CV events, CV mortality, or all-cause mortality. DATA EXTRACTION: Cohort characteristics and measures of risk associated with study-specified peptide thresholds. ANALYTICAL APPROACH: Hazard ratios (HRs) for clinical outcomes associated with different NT-proBNP and BNP ranges were categorized into common thresholds and pooled using random-effects meta-analysis. RESULTS: We identified 61 studies for inclusion in our review (19,688 people). 49 provided sufficient detail for inclusion in meta-analysis. Pooled unadjusted HRs for CV mortality were progressively greater for greater thresholds of NT-proBNP, from 1.45 (95% CI, 0.91-2.32) for levels>2,000pg/mL to 5.95 (95% CI, 4.23-8.37) for levels>15,000pg/mL. Risk for all-cause mortality was significantly higher at all NT-proBNP thresholds ranging from> 1,000 to> 20,000pg/mL (HR range, 1.53-4.00). BNP levels>550pg/mL were associated with increased risk for CV mortality (HR, 2.54; 95% CI, 1.49-4.33), while the risks for all-cause mortality were 2.04 (95% CI, 0.82-5.12) at BNP levels>100pg/mL and 2.97 (95% CI, 2.21-3.98) at BNP levels>550pg/mL. Adjusted analyses demonstrated similarly greater risks for CV and all-cause mortality with greater NT-proBNP concentrations. LIMITATIONS: Incomplete outcome reporting and risk for outcome reporting bias. Estimation of risk for CV events for specific thresholds of both peptides were limited by poor precision. CONCLUSIONS: ESKD-specific NT-proBNP and BNP level thresholds of elevation are associated with increased risk for CV and all-cause mortality. This information may help guide interpretation of NT-proBNP and BNP levels in patients with ESKD.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0140.028
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.313 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations70
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Kidney DiseasesSame topicHeart Failure Treatment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207