Renal Response Outcomes of the <scp>EuroLupus</scp> and National Institutes of Health Cyclophosphamide Dosing Regimens in <scp>Childhood‐Onset</scp> Proliferative Lupus Nephritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We compared clinical characteristics and renal response in patients with childhood-onset proliferative lupus nephritis (LN) treated with the EuroLupus versus National Institutes of Health (NIH) cyclophosphamide (CYC) regimen. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted at 11 pediatric centers in North America that reported using both CYC regimens. Data were extracted from the electronic medical record at baseline and 3, 6, and 12 months after treatment initiation with CYC. To evaluate the adjusted association between CYC regimen (EuroLupus vs NIH) and renal response over time, generalized estimating equations with a logit link were used. An interaction between time and CYC regimen was included, and a contrast between CYC regimens at 12 months was used to evaluate the primary outcome. RESULTS: One hundred forty-five patients (58 EuroLupus, 87 NIH) were included. EuroLupus patients were on average older at the start of current CYC therapy, had longer disease duration, and more commonly had relapsed or refractory LN compared with the NIH group. After multivariable adjustment, there was no significant association between CYC regimen and achieving complete renal response at 12 months (odds ratio [OR] of response for the EuroLupus regimen, reference NIH regimen: 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.29-1.98). There was also no significant association between CYC regimen and achieving at least a partial renal response at 12 months (OR 1.35, 95% CI 0.57-3.19). CONCLUSION: Our study failed to demonstrate a benefit of the NIH regimen over the EuroLupus CYC regimen in childhood-onset proliferative LN. However, future prospective outcome studies are needed.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".