Copeptin as a Biomarker in Chronic Kidney Disease—A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Numerous studies have explored the potential of the biomarker copeptin (CPP) in diagnosing and assessing the severity of chronic kidney disease (CKD). Despite these efforts, findings have been inconsistent. Consequently, this study aimed to examine the association between CPP and CKD, specifically evaluating its diagnostic value and correlation with CKD severity as classified by the Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) guidelines. Methods: A systematic search of PubMed, EMBASE, and Scopus was conducted using a predefined search string to identify relevant studies. Eligible studies included those involving CKD patients classified by glomerular filtration rate (GFR) according to the Kidney Disease Outcomes Quality Initiative (KDOQI) guidelines or by the estimated GFR (eGFR) calculated using the MDRD formula, provided they met predefined inclusion criteria. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS). The primary outcome measured was the mean difference (MD) in serum CPP levels across the various stages of CKD. Results: A total of seven studies, comprising 2769 participants, met the inclusion criteria and were incorporated into our systematic review and meta-analysis. Notable differences in CPP levels were identified across various comparisons. Specifically, CPP levels were significantly elevated in CKD patients compared to healthy controls, with a mean difference (MD) of 12.975 (95% CI 6.572, 19.379). Additional significant MDs were observed in comparisons including controls versus CKD stages 1–2/2 (−1.600 [95% CI −3.179, −0.020]), controls versus CKD stage 3 (−9.598 [95% CI −12.959,−6.237]), controls versus CKD stages 4–5 (−28.776 [95% CI −42.925, −14.628]), and CKD stages 1–2 versus stages 4–5 (−30.475 [95% CI −46.790, −14.160]). Conclusions: Comparison between the CKD patients and healthy controls revealed significantly elevated CPP levels, suggesting a possible role in renal pathology. Furthermore, the distinct differences in CPP concentrations across various CKD stages highlight its potential as a biomarker for assessing disease severity and progression.
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 | 0.014 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.034 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".