Validation of the Kidney Failure Risk Equation in Kidney Transplant Recipients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Predicting allograft failure in kidney transplant recipients can help plan renal replacement therapy and guide patient-provider communication. The kidney failure risk equation (KFRE) accurately predicts the need for dialysis in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD), but has not been validated in kidney transplant recipients. OBJECTIVE: We sought to validate the 4-variable KFRE (age, sex, estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR], and urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio [ACR]) for prediction of 2- and 5-year death-censored allograft failure. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Four independent North American Cohorts from Ontario, Canada; Alberta, Canada; Manitoba, Canada; and Wisconsin, United States, between January 1999 and December 2017. PATIENTS: Adult kidney transplant patients at 1-year posttransplantation. MEASUREMENTS: Kidney failure risk as measured by the KFRE (eGFR, urine ACR, age, and sex). METHODS: We included all adult patients who had at least 1 serum creatinine and at least 1 urine ACR measurement approximately 1 year following kidney transplantation. The performance of the KFRE was evaluated using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (C-statistic). C-statistics from the 4 cohorts were meta-analyzed using random-effects models. RESULTS: ), with a C-statistic of 0.88 (0.78-0.98) for the 2-year KFRE and 0.83 (0.74-0.91) for the 5-year KFRE. LIMITATIONS: The KFRE does not predict episodes of acute rejection and there was heterogeneity between cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: The KFRE accurately predicts kidney failure in kidney transplant recipients at 1-year posttransplantation. Further validation in larger cohorts with longer follow-up times can strengthen the case for clinical implementation.
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 | 0.062 | 0.067 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".