Development and Validation of a Prediction Model for Kidney Failure in Long-Term Survivors of Childhood Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Kidney failure is a rare but serious late effect following treatment for childhood cancer. We developed a model using demographic and treatment characteristics to predict individual risk of kidney failure among 5-year survivors of childhood cancer. METHODS: Five-year survivors from the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study (CCSS) without history of kidney failure (n = 25,483) were assessed for subsequent kidney failure (ie, dialysis, kidney transplantation, or kidney-related death) by age 40 years. Outcomes were identified by self-report and linkage with the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network and the National Death Index. A sibling cohort (n = 5,045) served as a comparator. Piecewise exponential models accounting for race/ethnicity, age at diagnosis, nephrectomy, chemotherapy, radiotherapy, congenital genitourinary anomalies, and early-onset hypertension estimated the relationships between potential predictors and kidney failure, using area under the curve (AUC) and concordance (C) statistic to evaluate predictive power. Regression coefficient estimates were converted to integer risk scores. The St Jude Lifetime Cohort Study and the National Wilms Tumor Study served as validation cohorts. RESULTS: Among CCSS survivors, 204 developed late kidney failure. Prediction models achieved an AUC of 0.65-0.67 and a C-statistic of 0.68-0.69 for kidney failure by age 40 years. Validation cohort AUC and C-statistics were 0.88/0.88 for the St Jude Lifetime Cohort Study (n = 8) and 0.67/0.64 for the National Wilms Tumor Study (n = 91). Risk scores were collapsed to form statistically distinct low- (n = 17,762), moderate- (n = 3,784), and high-risk (n = 716) groups, corresponding to cumulative incidences in CCSS of kidney failure by age 40 years of 0.6% (95% CI, 0.4 to 0.7), 2.1% (95% CI, 1.5 to 2.9), and 7.5% (95% CI, 4.3 to 11.6), respectively, compared with 0.2% (95% CI, 0.1 to 0.5) among siblings. CONCLUSION: Prediction models accurately identify childhood cancer survivors at low, moderate, and high risk for late kidney failure and may inform screening and interventional strategies.
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 | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".