#7 The kidney failure risk equation in IgA nephropathy: external validation and model update
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background and Aims IgA nephropathy (IgAN) is the most prevalent glomerulonephritis and a leading cause of chronic kidney disease (CKD) globally. The disease's progression varies widely, so accurately predicting prognosis is crucial for identifying patients at risk of developing end-stage kidney disease (ESKD). Prognostic information is essential in patient counseling and could help decide appropriate treatment options. The 2024 KDIGO guidelines for CKD recommend using established CKD risk prediction tools to assess the risk for ESKD. The Kidney Failure Risk Equation (KFRE), developed in 2011 from a Canadian cohort, predicts the 2- and 5-year risk of ESKD in patients with eGFR <60 ml/min/1.73 m2 corresponding to chronic kidney failure stage 3. It has been externally validated using multiple international CKD cohorts involving over 700,000 patients. The tool includes four variables: age, sex, urine albumin/creatinine, and eGFR. It is easily accessible as an online tool. The International IgA Prediction Tool was developed in 2019. It can predict prognosis in IgAN for up to 6.7 years, and the current KDIGO guidelines recommend using it in patient counseling. However, the tool needs clinical and histopathological features from the Oxford classification to predict prognosis. In many patients with IgAN, detailed histopathological information might be unavailable due to few glomeruli in the diagnostic kidney biopsy. We, therefore, set out to externally validate the KFRE in an IgAN population. Method We used data from the Norwegian Kidney Biopsy Registry and patient records to identify 236 patients with biopsy-confirmed IgAN who had advanced to stage 3 chronic kidney disease. We used the published regression equation to derive the five-year prognostic index. We then assessed discrimination using cumulative dynamic receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analysis and the concordance index. Model calibration was evaluated by calibration curves, while goodness of fit was assessed by the Akaike information criterion (AIC). Recalibration was performed by updating the baseline survival from the validation cohort and performing regression on the prognostic index. An updated multivariable Cox model was derived using the same four variables and internally validated using boot-strapping methodology. Results 170 (72%) of the patients were male, and the median age at CKD stage 3 was 48 years (IQR 34–59). The median urine albumin creatinine ratio was 71 mg/mmol (IQR 28–216). A total of 98 patients reached ESKD during the time of follow-up, while 20 patients died. The median follow-up time was four years (IQR 1–9). In total, 167 (71%) patients were treated with RAAS inhibitors, while 57 (24%) received immunosuppressive treatment. ROC analysis at five years presented an area under curve (AUC) value at 0.78, decreasing to 0.64 at 20 years (Table 1). Calibration curves revealed poor calibration at five and ten years by underestimating and overestimating ESKD-free survival in the low-risk and high-risk groups, respectively (Fig. 1). The AIC value was 860.61. Recalibration showed an improved calibration after five and ten years and improved goodness of fit (AIC: 838.21). Multivariable analysis revealed that eGFR and proteinuria were the prominent predictors. The new Cox model showed improved discrimination compared to the KRFE model, with AUC at 0.84 at five years, decreasing to 0.73 at 20 years (Table 1), and no signs of overfitting in internal validation, improved calibration (Fig. 1), and an improved AIC at 815.093. Conclusion Based on data from this cohort, the 4-parameter KRFE has acceptable predictive probabilities in patients with IgAN. However, it might be possible to improve model performance if the KFRE is adapted and updated for IgAN patients. One should be aware of the potential reduced predictive performance of generic CKD calculators in subgroups of patients.
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 | 0.046 | 0.067 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
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".