MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4206994334 · doi:10.2215/cjn.08980621

Potential Effects of Elimination of the Black Race Coefficient in eGFR Calculations in the CREDENCE Trial

2022· article· en· W4206994334 on OpenAlexaff
David M. Charytan, Jie Yu, Meg Jardine, Christopher P. Cannon, Rajiv Agarwal, George L. Bakris, Tom Greene, Adeera Levin, Carol A. Pollock, Neil R. Powe, Clare Arnott, Kenneth W. Mahaffey

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersJanssen Research and Development
KeywordsMedicineCreatinineCredenceInternal medicineRandomized controlled trialRenal functionKidney diseasePlaceboPathologyStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background and objectives The effect of including race in the Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) equation on screening, recruitment, and outcomes of clinical trials is unclear. Design, setting, participants, & measurements The inclusion and outcomes of participants in the Canagliflozin and Renal Events in Diabetes with Established Nephropathy Clinical Evaluation (CREDENCE) trial, which randomized individuals with type 2 diabetes and CKD to canagliflozin or placebo, were evaluated after calculating eGFR using the 2009 CKD-EPI creatinine equation with and without a race-specific coefficient or the 2021 CKD-EPI creatinine equation. Treatment effects were estimated using proportional hazards models and piecewise linear mixed effects models for eGFR slope. Results Of 4401 randomized participants, 2931 (67%) were White participants, 224 (5%) were Black participants, 877 (20%) were Asian participants, and 369 (8%) participants were other race. Among randomized participants, recalculation of screening eGFR using the 2009 equation without a race-specific coefficient had no effect on the likelihood of non-Black participants meeting inclusion criteria but would have excluded 22 (10%) randomized Black participants for eGFR<30 ml/min per 1.73 m 2 . Recalculation with the 2021 equation would have excluded eight (4%) Black participants for low eGFR and one (0.4%) Black participant for eGFR≥90 ml/min per 1.73 m 2 , whereas 30 (0.7%) and 300 (7%) non-Black participants would have been excluded for low and high eGFR, respectively. A high proportion (eight of 22; 36%) of end points in Black participants occurred in individuals who would have been excluded following recalculation using the race-free 2009 equation but not when recalculated with the 2021 equation (one of eight; 13%). Cardiovascular and kidney treatment effects remained consistent across eGFR categories following recalculation with either equation. Changes in estimated treatment effects on eGFR slope were modest but were qualitatively larger following recalculation using the 2021 equation. However, the effect of canagliflozin on chronic change in eGFR was attenuated by 7% among Black participants and increased 6% in non-Black participants. Conclusions In the CREDENCE trial, eGFR recalculation without the race-specific coefficient had small but potentially important effects on event rates and the relative proportion of Black participants without substantially changing efficacy estimates. Clinical Trial registry name and registration number: Canagliflozin and Renal Events in Diabetes with Established Nephropathy Clinical Evaluation (CREDENCE), NCT02065791

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)0.364
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.479
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.636
Threshold uncertainty score0.784

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.3640.479
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.011
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0040.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.323 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
DomainMethods
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

Citations15
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Journal of the American Society of NephrologySame topicDiabetes Treatment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207