Functional joint models for chronic kidney disease in kidney transplant recipients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This functional joint model paper is motivated by a chronic kidney disease study post kidney transplantation. The available kidney organ is a scarce resource because millions of end-stage renal patients are on the waiting list for kidney transplantation. The life of the transplanted kidney can be extended if the progression of the chronic kidney disease stage can be slowed, and so a major research question is how to extend the transplanted kidney life to maximize the usage of the scarce organ resource. The glomerular filtration rate is the best test to monitor the progression of the kidney function, and it is a continuous longitudinal outcome with repeated measures. The patient's survival status is characterized by time-to-event outcomes including kidney transplant failure, death with kidney function, and death without kidney function. Few studies have been carried out to simultaneously investigate these multiple clinical outcomes in chronic kidney disease stage patients based on a joint model. Therefore, this paper proposes a new functional joint model from this clinical chronic kidney disease study. The proposed joint models include a longitudinal sub-model with a flexible basis function for subject-level trajectories and a competing-risks sub-model for multiple time-to event outcomes. The different association structures can be accomplished through a time-dependent function of shared random effects from the longitudinal process or the whole longitudinal history in the competing-risks sub-model. The proposed joint model that utilizes basis function and competing-risks sub-model is an extension of the standard linear joint models. The application results from the proposed joint model can supply some useful clinical references for chronic kidney disease study post kidney transplantation.
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 | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".