An independent validation of the kidney failure risk equation in an Asian population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Predicting the risk of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) progression facilitates appropriate nephrology care of patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). Previously, the kidney failure risk equations (KFREs) were developed and validated in several cohorts. The purpose of this study is to validate the KFREs in a Korean population and to recalibrate the equations. A total of 38,905 adult patients, including 13,244 patients with CKD stages G3-G5, who were referred to nephrology were recruited. Using the original KFREs (4-, 6- and 8-variable equations) and recalibration equations, we predicted the risk of 2- and 5-year ESRD progression. All analyses were conducted in CKD stages G3-G5 patients as well as the total population. In CKD stages G3-G5 patients, All the original 4-, 6- and 8-variable equations showed excellent areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.87 and 0.83 for the 2- and 5-year risk of ESRD, respectively. The results of net reclassification improvement, integrated discrimination index and Brier score showed that recalibration improved the prediction models in some cases. The original KFREs showed high discrimination in both CKD stages G3-G5 patients and the total population referred to nephrology in this large Korean cohort. KFREs can be implemented in Korean health systems and can guide nephrology referrals and other CKD-related treatment decisions.
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 | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".