Quantifying Duration of Proteinuria Remission and Association with Clinical Outcome in IgA Nephropathy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: On the basis of findings of observational studies and a meta-analysis, proteinuria reduction has been proposed as a surrogate outcome in IgA nephropathy. How long a reduction in proteinuria needs to be maintained to mitigate the long-term risk of disease progression is unknown. METHODS: In this retrospective multiethnic cohort of adult patients with IgA nephropathy, we defined proteinuria remission as a ≥25% reduction in proteinuria from the peak value after biopsy, and an absolute reduction in proteinuria to <1 g/d. The exposure of interest was the total duration of first remission, treated as a time-varying covariate using longitudinal proteinuria measurements. We used time-dependent Cox proportional hazards regression models to quantify the association between the duration of remission and the primary outcome (ESKD or a 50% reduction in eGFR). RESULTS: During a median follow-up of 3.9 years, 274 of 1864 patients (14.7%) experienced the primary outcome. The relationship between duration of proteinuria remission and outcome was nonlinear. Each 3 months in sustained remission up to approximately 4 years was associated with an additional 9% reduction in the risk of disease progression (hazard ratio [HR], 0.91; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.89 to 0.93). Thereafter, each additional 3 months in remission was associated with a smaller, nonsignificant risk reduction (HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.96 to 1.03). These findings were robust to multivariable adjustment and consistent across clinical and histologic subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings support the use of proteinuria as a surrogate outcome in IgA nephropathy, but additionally demonstrate the value of quantifying the duration of proteinuria remission when estimating the risk of hard clinical endpoints.
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 | 0.016 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".