A Systematic Review of Reported Outcomes in ADPKD Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease (ADPKD) is a progressive genetic kidney disease. Studies of ADPKD presented results using different outcome measures. We aimed to summarize outcomes reported in ADPKD studies, including composite outcomes. Methods: We conducted a systematic review of published studies that included patients with ADPKD and measured kidney-related outcomes. We searched published databases and included all studies regardless of design with at least 100 participants for observational studies. We excluded studies that were limited to dialysis, transplant, or pregnancy outcomes in patients with ADPKD. Results: analyses, and 94 observational studies). We identified 214 different outcomes, and we categorized them into the 24 main outcome domains. In addition, the review identified 13 articles that reported 9 different composite outcomes. Conclusion: The finding highlights the inconsistency in the outcomes reported by researchers and how they are measured in ADPKD studies. The variability in the outcomes reported supports the need to standardize outcomes in ADPKD studies.
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 | 0.015 | 0.069 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.019 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".