Bibliographic record
Abstract
(Suggestions are based on Level III and IV evidence) While there have been mixed reports of success with a number of agents, further evidence is required before they can be recommended as second line therapy in membranous glomerulonephritis (MGN). Azathioprine Studies in the treatment of idiopathic MGN have found mixed benefits from using azathioprine combined with corticosteroids over steroid alone. Baker et al (1998) demonstrated that the addition of oral azathioprine to a regimen of intravenous pulse methylprednisolone and oral prednisone could reverse or stabilize progressive kidney failure in patients with membranous nephropathy. Most series have not shown any benefit (Brown et al 1998). In a small controlled trial, five patients with the nephrotic syndrome due to idiopathic MGN received azathioprine, 2.5 mg/kg/d, while four others received placebo. After 1 year of treatment there was no significant difference in creatinine clearance or 24-hour excretion of protein between the two groups (Western Canadian Glomerulonephritis Study Group, 1976). The Sheffield Kidney Institute reviewed 58 patients with idiopathic MGN and nephrotic-range proteinuria (Ahuja et al, 1999). Thirty-eight patients were treated with prednisolone (1 mg/kg/d) and azathioprine (2 mg/kg/d) for a median period of 26 months. Twenty patients received no specific treatment for MGN and served as a control group. Neither the level of proteinuria, the rate of renal decline nor the proportion of patients with deteriorating renal function differed significantly between the groups. In addition, adverse effects of immunosuppressive treatment were observed in 9 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 | 0.013 | 0.107 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.020 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.537 | 0.390 |
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".