The controversy of klotho as a potential biomarker in chronic kidney disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Klotho is an identified longevity gene with beneficial pleiotropic effects on the kidney. Evidence shows that a decline in serum Klotho level occurs in early chronic kidney disease (CKD) and continues as CKD progresses. Klotho deficiency is associated with poor clinical outcomes and CKD mineral bone disorders (CKD-MBD). Klotho has been postulated as a candidate biomarker in the evaluation of CKD. However, the evidence for the clinical significance of the relationship between Klotho and kidney function, CKD stage, adverse kidney and/or non-kidney outcomes, and CKD-MBD remains inconsistent and in some areas, contradictory. Therefore, there is uncertainty as to whether Klotho is a potential biomarker in CKD; a general consensus regarding the clinical significance of Klotho in CKD has not been reached, and there is limited evidence synthesis in this area. To address this, we have systematically assessed the areas of controversy, focusing on the inconsistencies in the evidence base. We used a PICOM strategy to search for relevant studies and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale scoring to evaluate included publications. We reviewed the inconsistent clinical findings based on the relationship of Klotho with CKD stage, kidney and/or non-kidney adverse outcomes, and CKD-MBD in human studies. Subsequently, we assessed the underlying sources of the controversies and highlighted future directions to resolve these inconsistencies and clarify whether Klotho has a role as a biomarker in clinical practice in CKD.
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 | 0.110 | 0.279 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| 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".