MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4403812292 · doi:10.1681/asn.2024y62xgx8g

Effects of Type of Protein Intake on Risk of Kidney Disease Progression among Patients with Nondialysis-Dependent CKD: A Systematic Review

2024· review· en· W4403812292 on OpenAlexaff
Michelle MY Wong, Dani Renouf, Megan Borkum, Emily Lauren L. Simms, Nicole Huang, Adeera Levin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Society of Nephrology · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNutritional Studies and Diet
Canadian institutionsFraser HealthSt. Paul's HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineKidney diseaseInternal medicineDiseaseUrologyCardiologyOncologyEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: While diets restricted in protein quantity are recommended by kidney nutrition guidelines, the effect of the type of protein on CKD progression is not known. Thus, we performed a systematic review to assess the effects of plant-based diets on CKD progression. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Education Resources Information Center, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science from January 1990-November 28, 2022. We included RCTs and observational studies with prospectively-collected data assessing type of protein in patients with non-dialysis CKD. The primary outcome was progression to kidney failure. Secondary outcomes included change in eGFR, albuminuria, all-cause mortality, quality of life.Two authors independently screened titles/abstracts, reviewed full text articles, and extracted data. Meta-analysis was not possible due to variability in outcome reporting and sparse data. Risk of bias was assessed using the Nutrition Quality Evaluation Strengthening Tools. Results: Eight studies assessing type of protein or dietary patterns emphasizing plant-based food were included. There were 3 RCTs (N=179 patients), which assessed soy protein (2 studies) and Mediterranean diet (1 study) vs. control diets. There were 5 cohort studies (N=4221) assessing plant-based protein intake (3 studies), Mediterranean diet score (1 study), and DASH diet score (1 study). While RCTs demonstrated inconsistency in eGFR outcome, cohort studies demonstrated that higher plant-based protein intake and higher DASH/Mediterranean diet scores were associated with lower risks of end-stage kidney disease and mortality (Figure). Risk of bias was high in RCTs due to selection bias. Conclusion: Our systematic review of type of protein on CKD progression demonstrated reduced risk of CKD progression in cohort studies, but RCT evidence was limited.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.011
Bibliometrics0.0050.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.298 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Society of Nephrology→Same topicNutritional Studies and Diet→French-language works237,207→