A Cohort Study to Investigate Sex-specific Differences in ANCA-associated Glomerulonephritis Outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract IntroductionData surrounding sex-specific differences in ANCA-associated vasculitis glomerulonephritis (ANCA-GN) outcomes is sparse. We hypothesised that the previously observed increased risk of end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) in males is driven by sex-specific variation in immunosuppression dosing.MethodsPatients were recruited to the Irish Rare Kidney Disease Registry or followed by the Royal Free Hospital vasculitis team (2012-2020). Inclusion criteria: prior diagnosis of ANCA-GN (biopsy proven pauci-immune glomerulonephritis) and positive serology for anti-MPO or –PR3 antibodies. Renal and patient survival, stratified by sex and Berden histological class, was analysed. The cumulative- and starting dose/kilogram of induction agents and prednisolone, respectively, was compared between sexes. Results332 patients were included. Median follow-up was time 40.2 months (IQR 17.3–69.2). 73 (22%) reached ESKD and 47 (14.2%) died. Overall 1- and 5-year renal survival was 82.2% and 76.7% in males and 87.1% and 82.0% in females, respectively (p 0.13). The hazard ratio for ESKD in males versus females, after adjustment for age, ANCA serology, baseline creatinine and histological class was 1.07 (95% CI 0.59–1.93). There was no difference between sexes in the dose/kilogram of any induction agent.ConclusionWe did not observe a strong impact of sex on renal outcome in ANCA-GN. Treatment intensity does not vary by sex.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".