Evaluation of race-free eGFR equations in individuals of different ethnicity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) derived from serum creatinine (eGFRcr), cystatin C (eGFRcys), or both (eGFRcr-cys) by race-free equations are recommended staging chronic kidney disease (CKD). The current study aimed to compare these race-free eGFR equations for screening for low-grade CKD in Blacks and non-Blacks and to evaluate their association with mortality.Methods Race-free eGFR equations were evaluated in four studies with specific inclusion criteria based on the original research goals: African-PREDICT (341/380 healthy Black/White South Africans), FLEMENGHO (709 White community-dwelling Flemish), NHANES (1760/7931 Black and non-Black adult Americans), and 401 Black African patients hospitalised in Mbuji Mayi, Democratic Republic of Congo. The intraclass correlation coefficient and Bland and Altman statistics were used to assess consistency between eGFR equations and multivariable logistic or Cox regression to evaluate their association with mortality.Results Intraindividual discordance between eGFRs was larger in Black than non-Black NHANES and African-PREDICT participants. In NHANES, eGFRcr-cys was greater than eGFRcr, but smaller than eGFRcys, and replacing eGFRcr-cys by eGFRcr moved 25% Blacks and 15% non-Blacks to a higher (worse) eGFR KDIGO stage. In African-PREDICT and FLEMENGO, half of the measured creatinine clearance to eGFR ratios fell outside the expected 1.1-1.2 band. In NHANES, multivariable hazard ratios for total and cardiovascular mortality in relation to CKD grade were all lower than unity for grade-1 CKD and greater than unity for grade ≥3 (p < 0.0001) without any racial difference (0.11 ≤ p ≤ 0.98). These NHANES findings were consistent, if CKD stage was replaced by eGFR and in subgroup analyses. Whereas eGFRcys and eGFRcr-cys refined models, eGFRcr did not.Conclusions The NHANES mortality outcomes support the use of eGFRcys and eGFRcr-cys. However, large intraindividual variability between eGFR estimates may lead to KDIGO eGFR stage misclassification and calls for caution in the opportunistic or systematic screening for CKD in asymptomatic individuals with prevention as objective.
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 | 0.013 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".