Multinational Assessment of Accuracy of Equations for Predicting Risk of Kidney Failure: A Meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ImportanceIdentifying patients at risk of chronic kidney disease (CKD) progression may facilitate more optimal nephrology care. Kidney failure risk equations, including such factors as age, sex, estimated glomerular filtration rate, and calcium and phosphate concentrations, were previously developed and validated in 2 Canadian cohorts. Validation in other regions and in CKD populations not under the care of a nephrologist is needed.ObjectiveTo evaluate the accuracy of the risk equations across different geographic regions and patient populations through individual participant data meta-analysis.Data sourcesThirty-one cohorts, including 721,357 participants with CKD stages 3 to 5 in more than 30 countries spanning 4 continents, were studied. These cohorts collected data from 1982 through 2014.Study selectionCohorts participating in the CKD Prognosis Consortium with data on end-stage renal disease.Data extraction and synthesisData were obtained and statistical analyses were performed between July 2012 and June 2015. Using the risk factors from the original risk equations, cohort-specific hazard ratios were estimated and combined using random-effects meta-analysis to form new pooled kidney failure risk equations. Original and pooled kidney failure risk equation performance was compared, and the need for regional calibration factors was assessed.Main outcomes and measuresKidney failure (treatment by dialysis or kidney transplant).ResultsDuring a median follow-up of 4 years of 721,357 participants with CKD, 23,829 cases kidney failure were observed. The original risk equations achieved excellent discrimination (ability to differentiate those who developed kidney failure from those who did not) across all cohorts (overall C statistic, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.89-0.92 at 2 years; C statistic at 5 years, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.86-0.90); discrimination in subgroups by age, race, and diabetes status was similar. There was no improvement with the pooled equations. Calibration (the difference between observed and predicted risk) was adequate in North American cohorts, but the original risk equations overestimated risk in some non-North American cohorts. Addition of a calibration factor that lowered the baseline risk by 32.9% at 2 years and 16.5% at 5 years improved the calibration in 12 of 15 and 10 of 13 non-North American cohorts at 2 and 5 years, respectively (P = .04 and P = .02).Conclusions and relevanceKidney failure risk equations developed in a Canadian population showed high discrimination and adequate calibration when validated in 31 multinational cohorts. However, in some regions the addition of a calibration factor may be necessary.
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 | 0.107 | 0.142 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.066 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".