MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3033404945 · doi:10.1093/ndt/gfaa142.p0343

P0343RISK PREDICTION MODELS FOR PREDICTING PROGRESSION OF IGA NEPHROLOGY:A VALIDATION STUDY

2020· article· en· W3033404945 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jingyuan Xie

Bibliographic record

VenueNephrology Dialysis Transplantation · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRenal Diseases and Glomerulopathies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAkaike information criterionInterquartile rangeProportional hazards modelInternal medicineCohortStatisticNephropathyConcordanceStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background and Aims Risk prediction models for IgA nephropathy (IgAN) containing clinical variables (clinical model) or clinical plus pathological variables (full model) have been established based on a large international collaborative study recently, but external validation of these models are still required before clinical application. The aim of this study is to externally validate previously reported risk prediction models based on our multi-center IgAN cohort. Method Biopsy-proven IgAN patients with eGFR ≥15 ml/min/1.73 m2 at baseline and a minimum follow-up of 6 months were enrolled. Primary outcome was defined as end-stage kidney disease (ESRD). Cox proportional hazards models were built to validate risk models. R2, Akaike information criterion (AIC) and C statistic were calculated to evaluate model accuracy. Results A total of 2300 IgAN patients with a median follow-up of 30 months were enrolled, and 214(9.3%) ESRD occurred during the follow-up period. The median age was 35(interquartile range, 28-44) years, and 1106 cases (48.1%) were men. Our cohort successfully validated the clinical model and the full model based on C statistic (0.90 and 0.91) and R2 (0.32 and 0.32). Our results showed limited improvement in model performance after adding the Oxford classification parameters to clinical parameters. However, both two models performed better than the model consisting only pathological parameters(C statistic 0.83, R2 0.24). We also validated other risk prediction models, including CLIN model (C statistic 0.90, R2 0.32) and CLINPATH model (C statistic 0.91, R2 0.31) derived from Chinese IgAN patients or CKD model (C statistic 0.90, R2 0.32) derived from Canadian CKD patients. It was found that clinical models based on different combinations of clinical parameters performed similarly. Conclusion In summary, we successfully validated a recently reported IgAN risk model and we found that clinical parameters alone could accurately predict ESRD risk in IgAN patients.

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)0.026
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.140

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0260.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.267 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNephrology Dialysis TransplantationSame topicRenal Diseases and GlomerulopathiesFrench-language works237,207