Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 197
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3165
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once
98%
921
2 minutes
20
Background: Inter-individual variations of non-glomerular filtration rate (GFR) determinants of serum creatinine, such as muscle mass, account for the imperfect performance of estimated GFR (eGFR) equations. We aimed to develop an equation based on creatinine and total lumbar muscle cross-sectional area measured by unenhanced computed tomography scan at the third lumbar vertebra.
Methods: The muscle mass-based eGFR (MMB-eGFR) equation was developed in 118 kidney donor candidates (iohexol clearance) using linear regression. Validation cohorts included 114 healthy subjects from another center (Cr-EDTA clearance, validation population 1), 55 patients with chronic diseases (iohexol, validation population 2), and 60 patients with highly discordant creatinine and cystatin C-based eGFR, thus presumed to have atypical non-GFR determinants of creatinine (Cr-EDTA, validation population 3). Mean bias was the mean difference between eGFR and measured GFR, precision the standard deviation (SD) of the bias, and accuracy the percentage of eGFR values falling within 20% and 30% of measured GFR.
Results: In validation population 1, performance of MMB-eGFR was not different from those of CKD-EPI and CKD-EPI. In validation population 2, MMB-eGFR was unbiased and displayed better precision than CKD-EPI, CKD-EPI and EKFC (SD of the biases: 13.1 vs 16.5, 16.8 and 15.9 mL/min/1.73 m). In validation population 3, MMB-eGFR had better precision and accuracy {accuracy within 30%: 75.0% [95% confidence interval (CI) 64.0-86.0] vs 51.5% (95% CI 39.0-64.3) for CKD-EPI, 43.3% (95% CI 31.0-55.9) for CKD-EPICr2021, and 53.3% (95% CI 40.7-66.0) for EKFC}. Difference in bias between Black and white subjects was -2.1 mL/min/1.73 m (95% CI -7.2 to 3.0), vs -8.4 mL/min/1.73 m (95% CI -13.2 to -3.6) for CKD-EPI.
Conclusion: MMB-eGFR displayed better performances than equations based on demographics, and could be applied to subjects of various ethnic backgrounds.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10387393 | PMC |
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ckj/sfad012 | DOI Listing |