MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4318196272 · doi:10.1681/asn.0000000000000050

The Kidney Failure Risk Equation: Evaluation of Novel Input Variables including eGFR Estimated Using the CKD-EPI 2021 Equation in 59 Cohorts

2023· article· en· W4318196272 on OpenAlexaff
Morgan E. Grams, Nigel J. Brunskill, Shoshana H. Ballew, Yingying Sang, Josef Coresh, Kunihiro Matsushita, Aditya Surapaneni, Samira Bell, Juan Jesús Carrero, Gabriel Chodick, Marie Evans, Hiddo J.L. Heerspink, Lesley A. Inker, Kunitoshi Iseki, Philip A. Kalra, H. Lester Kirchner, Brian J. Lee, Adeera Levin, Rupert Major, James Medcalf, Girish N. Nadkarni, David Naimark, Ana C. Ricardo, Simon Sawhney, Manish M. Sood, Natalie Staplin, Nikita Stempniewicz, Bénédicte Stengel, Keiichi Sumida, Jamie P. Traynor, Jan A.J.G. van den Brand, Mark Woodward, Jae Won Yang, Angela Yee‐Moon Wang, Navdeep Tangri

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Society of Nephrology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Kidney Disease and Diabetes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaSunnybrook HospitalUniversity of TorontoUniversity of ManitobaOttawa HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Institutes of HealthAcademy of Medical Sciences
KeywordsStructural equation modelingMedicineMathematicsInternal medicineApplied mathematicsUrologyStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: The kidney failure risk equation (KFRE) uses age, sex, GFR, and urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio (ACR) to predict 2- and 5-year risk of kidney failure in populations with eGFR <60 ml/min per 1.73 m 2 . However, the CKD-EPI 2021 creatinine equation for eGFR is now recommended for use but has not been fully tested in the context of KFRE. In 59 cohorts comprising 312,424 patients with CKD, the authors assessed the predictive performance and calibration associated with the use of the CKD-EPI 2021 equation and whether additional variables and accounting for the competing risk of death improves the KFRE's performance. The KFRE generally performed well using the CKD-EPI 2021 eGFR in populations with eGFR <45 ml/min per 1.73 m 2 and was not improved by adding the 2-year prior eGFR slope and cardiovascular comorbidities. BACKGROUND: The kidney failure risk equation (KFRE) uses age, sex, GFR, and urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio (ACR) to predict kidney failure risk in people with GFR <60 ml/min per 1.73 m 2 . METHODS: Using 59 cohorts with 312,424 patients with CKD, we tested several modifications to the KFRE for their potential to improve the KFRE: using the CKD-EPI 2021 creatinine equation for eGFR, substituting 1-year average ACR for single-measure ACR and 1-year average eGFR in participants with high eGFR variability, and adding 2-year prior eGFR slope and cardiovascular comorbidities. We also assessed calibration of the KFRE in subgroups of eGFR and age before and after accounting for the competing risk of death. RESULTS: The KFRE remained accurate and well calibrated overall using the CKD-EPI 2021 eGFR equation. The other modifications did not improve KFRE performance. In subgroups of eGFR 45-59 ml/min per 1.73 m 2 and in older adults using the 5-year time horizon, the KFRE demonstrated systematic underprediction and overprediction, respectively. We developed and tested a new model with a spline term in eGFR and incorporating the competing risk of mortality, resulting in more accurate calibration in those specific subgroups but not overall. CONCLUSIONS: The original KFRE is generally accurate for eGFR <45 ml/min per 1.73 m 2 when using the CKD-EPI 2021 equation. Incorporating competing risk methodology and splines for eGFR may improve calibration in low-risk settings with longer time horizons. Including historical averages, eGFR slopes, or a competing risk design did not meaningfully alter KFRE performance in most circumstances.

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)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.034
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 score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.109

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.034
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.086
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.273 · 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

Citations74
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Society of NephrologySame topicChronic Kidney Disease and DiabetesFrench-language works237,207