An Updated Study to Determine Association between Gadolinium-Based Contrast Agents and Nephrogenic Systemic Fibrosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Nephrogenic systemic fibrosis (NSF) is a rare but serious disorder disease affecting patients with advanced renal disease. Although multiple studies have indicated an association between gadolinium-based contrast agents (GBCAs) and NSF, some studies published after 2007 found no association. We therefore performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the association and analyze related (co)factors. METHODS: Studies for analysis were identified by searching PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials through December 2014. Pooled odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using the fixed-effects model. Statistical heterogeneity was assessed by Q statistics and the I2 test. Publication bias was evaluated using Begg's test, Egger's test, funnel plot, and classic fail-safe N. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. We also conducted sensitivity analyses, subgroup analyses and a cumulative meta-analysis. All statistical analyses were performed using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis 2.0. RESULTS: A total of 14 studies (6,398 patients) met the inclusion criteria, but 3 were excluded since they reported no NSF events. Meta-analysis of controlled trials indicated a significant association between GBCAs and NSF development (OR = 16.504; 95% CI: 7.455-36.533; P < 0.001) and between gadodiamide and NSF (OR = 20.037; 95% CI: 3.725-107.784; P < 0.001). No statistical heterogeneity was observed across studies (P = 0.819, I2 = 0%; P = 0.874, I2 = 0%, respectively). Cumulative analysis demonstrated that the pooled ORs for association between GBCAs and NSF decreased post-2007 compared to pre-2007 (OR = 26.708; 95% CI: 10.273-69.436; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Although this updated meta-analysis found a significant association between GBCAs and the incidence of NSF in patients with advanced renal disease, the association decreased after 2007. More studies, especially randomized controlled trials, are warranted to examine the potential association between GBCAs other than gadodiamide and NSF.
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 | 0.009 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".