MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4397042243 · doi:10.1681/asn.20233411s1371b

Potential Implications of 2021 CKD-EPI Equation in Patients with CKD from British Columbia, Canada

2023· article· en· W4397042243 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mohammad Atiquzzaman, Lee Er, Ognjenka Djurdjev, Micheli Bevilacqua, Peter Birks, Michelle Wong, Adeera Levin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Society of Nephrology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineIntensive care medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: One in 10 British Columbians has kidney disease. The implications of implementing 2021 CKD-EPI equation in British Columbia (BC) is unknown. This was investigated in a population-level cohort of CKD patients from BC, Canada. Methods: CKD patients aged ≥19 years and registered in the “Provincial Renal Program” on March 31, 2023 (index date) were included. Patients needed to have ≥1 serum creatinine recorded within 1 year before index date. We excluded patients who received transplantation before index date. We calculated eGFR using CKD-EPI 2009 and 2021 equations, and estimated the mean difference in eGFRs and corresponding Kidney Failure Risk Equation (KFRE) 2-year risks by age and sex. We assessed the implications in two clinical aspects: (1) reclassification between eGFR categories (G1-G5) (2) reclassification between KDIGO risk categories (low, moderately increased, high and very high risk). Finally, we investigated patient characteristics among those who were reclassified in eGFR categories (switcher; yes/no). Results: Study sample included 16,037 patients, median age 74 years, 54% male. Compared to 2009 equation, eGFR calculated using 2021 equation was on average 1.80-2.60 ml/min higher in women and 2.86-3.33 ml/min higher in men. The 2021 equation downgraded the CKD severity with highest % of patients downgraded in G5 category (Fig.1). In KDIGO risk categorization, ˜4% of patients in the very high risk group were reclassified to a lower risk group. The switchers appeared to be older male, majority (˜43%) were in eGFR category G4 followed by 27% in G3b. KFRE 2-year risk score calculated using eGFR from 2021 equation was lower compared to that of estimated using eGFR from 2009 equation, median (IQR) in difference was -0.854 (-2.516, -0.258). Difference was larger in males. Conclusions: The eGFR calculated using CKD-EPI 2021 was higher compared to 2009 equation. A large number (˜17%) of patients currently under the care of nephrologists in BC would have categorically less severe CKD. The implications of this on resource utilization, care plans and outcomes are unknown. - CKD patients registered in Provincial Renal Program # Pts CKD-EPI 2021: eGFR category G1 G2 G3a G3b G4 G5 Total CKD-EPI 2009: eGFR category G1 754 0 0 0 0 0 754 G2 172 (14%) 1023 0 0 0 0 1195 G3a 0 310 (17%) 1492 0 0 0 1802 G3b 0 0 776 (16%) 3980 0 0 4756 G4 0 0 0 1166 (19%) 5124 0 6290 G5 0 0 0 0 278 (22%) 962 1240 Total 926 1333 2268 5146 5402 962 16037

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
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 score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.137

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.217 · 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Society of Nephrology→Same topicBlood Pressure and Hypertension Studies→French-language works237,207→