MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6977683576 · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.27316262

Predictive role of Oxford Classification for prognosis in children with IgA nephropathy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2024· dataset· en· W6977683576 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2024
Typedataset
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputational Physics and Python Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHazard ratioCohortGuidelineDiseaseProportional hazards modelCohort studyNephropathy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Oxford Classification was proposed as an independent prognostic indicator in IgA nephropathy (IgAN). However, most studies on the subject focus on adults instead of children. Using a meta-analysis to appraise the predictive roles of the Oxford classification for the prognosis of pediatric patients with IgAN. All cohort studies regarding the analysis of the association between poor kidney-related prognosis (GFR categories G2-G5) according to the Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Guideline in pediatric patients with IgAN and five pathologic lesions in the Oxford Classification were included. Hazard ratios (HRs) regarding the association between the Oxford classification and prognosis of pediatric patients with IgAN were synthesized using random effect models. The risk of bias in studies was assessed based on the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Fourteen articles were included with 5679 IgAN patients and 710 endpoint outcome events occurred. M1 was associated with a higher risk of poor kidney-related prognosis compared with M0, pooled HR (1.79; 95%CI, 1.46–2.19; <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001, random effect model). S1 and T1 or T2 increased the risk of poor kidney-related prognosis (pooled HR, 2.13; 95%CI, 1.68–2.70; <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001; pooled HR, 2.64; 95%CI, 1.81–3.86; <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001, respectively, estimated by random effect model). Compared with C0, C1, or C2 was also associated with an increased risk of poor kidney-related prognosis in the subgroup analysis of Asian and other populations. Evidence to indicate that E1 increased the risk of poor kidney-related prognosis was marginal.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.784
Threshold uncertainty score0.583

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.042
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.245 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it