Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a public health emergency because it is common and carries an increasing burden of morbidity and mortality. Until recently, treatment options for CKD and its adverse systemic effects were limited; however, we now have multiple approved therapies and a growing pipeline of promising treatments under evaluation. Despite the strong evidence and guideline recommendations supporting the broad use of approved therapies, uptake in practice remains lower than expected, potentially limiting the benefits of these advances. Early identification of CKD remains a prerequisite for therapy, yet screening and cost-effectiveness continue to be debated globally. In this review, we discuss the currently available pharmacologic treatments for CKD that have proven kidney and cardiac benefits with a specific focus on addressing barriers to implementation and ongoing trials that will inform their routine clinical use. We then discuss treatments that are in late-phase clinical trials that may expand the therapeutic options for CKD in the next few years. This will necessitate a personalized approach to management to determine which therapies will work best for which patients. Finally, we touch on therapeutic strategies that did not demonstrate clinical benefits despite rational physiologic support. This review addresses the know-do gap that exists in applying proven therapies for people with CKD and provides clinicians with practical tools and knowledge to improve clinical uptake, while acknowledging global challenges of access and affordability.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 teacher head, 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".