Pregnancy History and Kidney Disease Progression Among Women Enrolled in Cure Glomerulonephropathy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Preeclampsia increases the risk for future chronic kidney disease (CKD). Among those diagnosed with CKD, it is unclear whether a prior history of preeclampsia, or other complications in pregnancy, negatively impact kidney disease progression. In this longitudinal analysis, we assessed kidney disease progression among women with glomerular disease with and without a history of a complicated pregnancy. Methods: Adult women enrolled in the Cure Glomerulonephropathy study (CureGN) were classified based on a history of a complicated pregnancy (defined by presence of worsening kidney function, proteinuria, or blood pressure; or a diagnosis of preeclampsia, eclampsia, or hemolysis, elevated liver enzymes, and low platelets [HELLP] syndrome), pregnancy without these complications, or no pregnancy history at CureGN enrollment. Linear mixed models were used to assess estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) trajectories and urine protein-to-creatinine ratios (UPCRs) from enrollment. Results: = 0.007). Proteinuria did not differ significantly over time. Among those with a complicated pregnancy history, eGFR slope did not differ by timing of first complicated pregnancy relative to glomerular disease diagnosis. Conclusions: A history of complicated pregnancy was associated with greater eGFR decline in the years following glomerulonephropathy (GN) diagnosis. A detailed obstetric history may inform counseling regarding disease progression in women with glomerular disease. Continued research is necessary to better understand pathophysiologic mechanisms by which complicated pregnancies contribute to glomerular disease progression.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".