Suboptimal monitoring and management in patients with unrecorded stage 3 chronic kidney disease in real‐world settings: Insights from <scp>REVEAL</scp>‐<scp>CKD</scp>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Clinical practice guidelines for patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) recommend regular monitoring and management of kidney function and CKD risk factors. However, the majority of patients with stage 3 CKD lack a diagnosis code, and data on the implementation of these recommendations in the real world are limited. AIM: To assess the implementation of guideline-directed monitoring and management practices in the real world in patients with stage 3 CKD without a recorded diagnosis code. METHODS: REVEAL-CKD (NCT04847531) is a multinational, observational study of patients with stage 3 CKD. Eligible patients had ≥2 consecutive estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) measurements indicative of stage 3 CKD recorded >90 and ≤730 days apart, lacked an International Classification of Diseases 9/10 diagnosis code corresponding to CKD any time before and up to 6 months after the second eGFR measurement. Testing of key measures of care quality were assessed. RESULTS: The study included 435,971 patients from 9 countries. In all countries, the prevalence of urinary albumin-creatinine ratio and albuminuria testing was low. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, angiotensin receptor blocker and statin prescriptions were highly variable, and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor prescriptions remained below 21%. Blood pressure measurements were recorded in 20.2%-89.9% of patients. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, a large proportion of patients with evidence of stage 3 CKD did not receive recommended, guideline-directed monitoring and management. The variability in standard of care among countries demonstrates a clear opportunity to improve monitoring and management of these patients, most likely improving long-term outcomes.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".