Quantifying the benefits of remission duration in focal and segmental glomerulosclerosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although the clinical benefit of obtaining a remission in proteinuria in nephrotic patients with focal segmental glomerulosclerosis (FSGS) is recognized, the long-term value of maintaining it and the impact of relapses on outcome are not well described. METHODS: We examined the impact of remissions and relapses on either a 50% decline in kidney function or end-stage kidney disease (combined event) using time-dependent and landmark analyses in a retrospective study of all patients from the Toronto Glomerulonephritis Registry with biopsy-proven FSGS, established nephrotic-range proteinuria and at least one remission. RESULTS: In the 203 FSGS individuals with a remission, 89 never relapsed and 114 experienced at least one relapse. The first recurrence was often followed by a repeating pattern of remission and relapse. The 10-year survival from a combined event was 15% higher in those with no relapse versus those with any relapse. This smaller than anticipated difference was related to the favourable outcome in individuals whose relapses quickly remitted. Relapsers who ultimately ended in remission (n = 46) versus in relapse (n = 68) experienced a 91% and 32% 7-year event survival (P < .001), respectively. Using time-varying survival analyses that considered all periods of remission and relapse in every patient and adjusting for each period's initial estimated glomerular filtration rate, the state of relapse was associated with a 2.17 (95% confidence interval 1.32-3.58; P = .002) greater risk of experiencing a combined event even in this FSGS remission cohort. CONCLUSION: In FSGS, unless remissions are maintained and relapses avoided, long-term renal survival remains poor. Treatment strategies addressing remission duration remain poorly defined and should be an essential question in future trials.
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 | 0.006 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".