Defining measures of kidney function in observational studies using routine health care data: methodological and reporting considerations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The availability of electronic health records and access to a large number of routine measurements of serum creatinine and urinary albumin enhance the possibilities for epidemiologic research in kidney disease. However, the frequency of health care use and laboratory testing is determined by health status and indication, imposing certain challenges when identifying patients with kidney injury or disease, when using markers of kidney function as covariates, or when evaluating kidney outcomes. Depending on the specific research question, this may influence the interpretation, generalizability, and/or validity of study results. This review illustrates the heterogeneity of working definitions of kidney disease in the scientific literature and discusses advantages and limitations of the most commonly used approaches using 3 examples. We summarize ways to identify and overcome possible biases and conclude by proposing a framework for reporting definitions of exposures and outcomes in studies of kidney disease using routinely collected health care data.
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 | 0.604 | 0.762 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.025 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".