MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4397025268 · doi:10.1681/asn.20203110s1799c

Is Routine Screening with Serum and Urine Protein Electrophoresis in Evaluation of CKD Justified?

2020· article· en· W4397025268 on OpenAlexaffabout
Omar Ashour, Christine A. White, Eduard A. Iliescu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Society of Nephrology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBiochemical and Molecular Research
Canadian institutionsKingston Health Sciences CentreQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUrineMedicineUrologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Current guidelines for the evaluation of chronic kidney disease (CKD) in Ontario, Canada do not include routine screening with serum and urine protein electrophoresis (SPEP and UPEP). Previous studies suggest that M-spike is more common in CKD compared to the general population (1,2). This study aims to examine the use and cost of screening SPEP and UPEP in the evaluation of CKD pts. Methods: This is a retrospective study of 149 sequential incident pts referred to a teaching General Nephrology clinic for evaluation of CKD between Jan and Nov, 2018. The SPEP and UPEP testing frequency, and proportion with M-spike were obtained by chart review, along with the routinely performed clinical, blood and urine tests, imaging, as well as reports of any Hematology consultation, renal and bone marrow biopsies performed. Results: Screening SPEP and UPEP tests were done in 104 (70 %) pts, mean age 72.2 yrs, 42 (40 %) female, 52 (50 %) DM, and Caucasian majority. M-spike was present in 11 pts (10.6 %, 96 % CI 5.4 - 18.8 %), 2 IgG-κ, 5 IgG-λ, 1 IgA-λ, 2 LC-κ, and 1 LC-λ. Eight had Hematology consultation, 6 had bone marrow biopsy, and 3 had renal biopsy. Diagnoses were 7 MGUS, 2 myeloma (MM), 1 amyloid (AL), and 1 both MM + AL. There were no differences in clinical, demographic, CBC, serum calcium, urine albumin to creatinine ratio, urinalysis, or renal imaging among pts with and without M-spike but sample size did not allow multivariate analysis. Conclusions: In this study, the prevalence of M-spike in CKD is higher than has been reported in the literature in the general population (5.4 - 18.8 % vs. 3 - 4 %). The cost for testing and interpretation fees for SPEP and UPEP are CDN $ 25.53 and $ 32.99 respectively, with detection costs of $ 553.28 per M-spike and $ 1,521.25 per myeloma or amyloid. These costs are consistent with previous studies controlled for inflation (1,2). Routine screening with SPEP and UPEP in the evaluation of CKD may be useful and cost-effective. Larger prospective studies are needed to identify subgroups with higher likelihood of M-spike to target testing. 1. Al-Hwiesh et al. J Am Soc Nephrol 2003 14:295A. 2. Chew et al. Am J Kidney Dis. 1999 Jul;34(1):135-9.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.212

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.264 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Society of NephrologySame topicBiochemical and Molecular ResearchFrench-language works237,207