MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

INFLUENCE OF AGE OF ONSET OF LUPUS NEPHRITIS ON OUTCOMES: AN INCEPTION COHORT-BASED STUDY

2025· article· en· W4410513022 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Fadi Kharouf, Pankti Mehta, Qixuan Li, Dafna D. Gladman, Zahi Touma, Laura Whittall-García

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Rheumatology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSystemic Lupus Erythematosus Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLupus nephritisCohortCohort studySystemic lupus erythematosusInternal medicinePediatricsPhysical therapyGerontologyDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PV124 / #678 Poster Topic: AS15 - Lupus Nephritis-Clinical Background/Purpose Renal involvement in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) most commonly occurs in women of the reproductive age group. However, it may theoretically start at any age. In this study, we aimed to explore the impact of early vs late-onset lupus nephritis (EoLN vs LoLN) on clinical presentation and disease outcomes. Methods We included 246 inception cohort patients who developed LN during follow-up. We classified patients based on the age of onset of LN into EoLN (before age 50; 205 patients) and LoLN (50 years or older; 41 patients). Outcomes included complete proteinuria recovery (CPR) at 1 year, an adverse composite outcome (end-stage kidney disease [ESKD], a sustained ≥40% decline in eGFR, or death), subsequent LN flares (doubling of proteinuria to ≥1 g/day after complete response or to ≥2 g/day partial response), and a ≥1 point increase in non-renal SLICC damage index (SDI). The association with outcomes was studied using Cox proportional hazards model. Results At baseline, the median [IQR] age was 31.4 [25.2, 38.5] years for EoLN and 58.4 [53.9, 63.5] years for LoLN. LoLN patients exhibited higher median creatinine levels, lower median eGFR, reduced proteinuria, and a lower median SLEDAI-2K score compared to EoLN patients. On long-term follow-up (median 8.5 years [IQR 4.2, 15.5]), the rates of achieving CRR, adverse composite outcomes, and renal flares were comparable between the 2 groups (Table 1). However, the LoLN group demonstrated a significantly higher incidence of a ≥1 point increase in non-renal SDI. Additionally, the time to damage accrual was notably shorter in the LoLN group (Figure 1). Cox proportional hazard models confirmed these results by showing no significant differences between the 2 groups in terms of achieving CRR (LoLN vs. EoLN, HR 1.29, 95% CI 0.76-2.18, p=0.35), developing adverse composite outcomes (LoLN vs. EoLN, HR 1.16, 95% CI 0.57-2.35, p=0.68), or experiencing renal flares (HR 0.54, 95% CI 0.23-1.28, p=0.16). Notably, LoLN was associated with significantly higher odds of a ≥1 point increase in non-renal SDI (HR 2.37, 95% CI 1.42-3.97, p<0.01). Table 1. Rate and time to short and long-term outcomes of patients with early- and late-onset lupus nephritis. Figure 1. Kaplan-Meier curve showing the differences between the early- and late-onset lupus nephritis groups in time to a ≥1 point increase in non-renal SDI. Conclusions Late-onset lupus nephritis (LN) is not associated with significant differences in short- or long-term renal outcomes; however, it is associated with increased damage accrual over 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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.318 · 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Rheumatology→Same topicSystemic Lupus Erythematosus Research→French-language works237,207→