Accuracy of Shorter Iohexol GFR Measurement Protocols in Individuals with Preserved Kidney Function
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Key Points Shorter measured GFR protocols are accurate and precise compared with the reference standard measured GFR protocol in patients with preserved GFR. These shorter protocols can potentially improve the adoption of GFR measurement more widely by reducing procedural time and cost. Background Measured GFR (mGFR) using exogenous tracers is recommended in a number of settings. Plasma one-compartment multisample protocols (MSPs) are the most commonly used, with iohexol being the dominant tracer. The accuracy of MSPs has mostly been evaluated in the setting of reduced GFR where delayed initial and final samples are recommended. Much less is known about MSPs when GFR is not decreased, and the default protocol tends to include initial sampling at 120 minutes and final sampling at 240 minutes after iohexol injection. The recent Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes 2024 Clinical Practice Guideline for the Evaluation and Management of CKD includes research recommendations for the development of shorter more efficient mGFR protocols. The objective of this study was to assess the performance of shorter MSPs with earlier initial (60 and 90 minutes) and final (150, 180, and 210 minutes) sampling times in individuals with preserved GFR. Reference mGFR (R-mGFR) was calculated using five samples collected between 120 and 240 minutes. Methods Four different combinations of shorter sampling strategies were investigated. Performance was evaluated using measurements of bias, precision, and accuracy (P2, P5, and mean absolute error). Results The mean R-mGFR of the 43 participants was 102.3±13.7 ml/min per 1.73 m 2 . All shorter mGFRs had biases <1 ml/min per 1.73 m 2 and mean absolute error <1.6 ml/min per 1.73 m 2 . All shorter mGFRs were within 5% of the R-mGFR, and the majority were within 2%. Conclusions These results demonstrate that shortening the mGFR procedure in individuals with preserved GFR provides similar results to the current standard while significantly decreasing procedure time.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".