MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

1115 RAIL biomarkers capture response to induction therapy in pediatric patients during induction therapy

2022· article· en· W4313532418 on OpenAlexaff
Ellen Cody, Scott E. Wenderfer, Kathleen E. Sullivan, Alfred H.J. Kim, Tingting Qiu, Bin Huang, Prasad Devarajan, Hermine I. Brunner

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSystemic Lupus Erythematosus Research
Canadian institutionsBC Children's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLupus nephritisInternal medicineRenal functionProteinuriaCreatinineGastroenterologyRenal biopsyCalprotectinUrologyKidney

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE) remains a diagnostic and therapeutic challenge, particularly lupus nephritis (LN). We previously described a composite score, the pediatric Renal Activity Index for Lupus (pRAIL), consisting of neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin (NGAL), kidney injury molecule-1 (KIM-1), monocyte chemotactic protein 1 (MCP-1), adiponectin, hemopexin and ceruloplasmin, where higher scores represent more active inflammation on biopsy. We hypothesized that when followed longitudinally during induction therapy, pRAIL significantly improves during induction therapy in complete responders, and aimed to assess the difference between complete and partial responders. Methods Patients aged 23 and younger diagnosed with LN were recruited (IRB #2008-0635). Diagnosis was made according to ACR criteria for SLE, with renal biopsy confirmation of LN. Urine was collected at diagnosis and end of induction. Complete responders were defined by urine protein to creatinine ratio <0.5 mg/mg, absence of hematuria, and normal glomerular filtration rate. Partial responders had decrease in proteinuria by 50% and GFR stable to improved from diagnosis. Response was also defined as improved activity index on follow up biopsy. Descriptive analyses, ANOVA, paired and student t-tests were performed for analyses. Results A total of 25 patients aged 23 or younger were recruited at the start of induction therapy. 15 of the patients were complete responders, 7 were partial responders. Table 1 shows the characteristics and pRAIL scores of the complete and partial responders pre and post therapy. Among the three non-responders, standardized and non-standardized pRAIL scores numerically increased during induction therapy. The mean±SD of pRAIL scores significantly decreased in complete responders by 1.07 ± 1.7 (p=0.03) and were unchanged in partial responders (0.07 ± 1.56, p= 0.91), as shown in figure 1. Conclusions This study shows the pRAIL score (both absolute and standardized) distinguishes complete responders versus partial responders during induction therapy. Complete responders pRAIL score decrease by mean of 1 point, whereas partial responders had no change. Notably, standardized pRAIL scores yielded more pronounced differences during induction therapy among both partial and complete responders.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.266 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSystemic Lupus Erythematosus Research→French-language works237,207→