ArticlePloS one2024
Panel estimated Glomerular Filtration Rate (GFR): Statistical considerations for maximizing accuracy in diverse clinical populations.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Can Measuring Glomerular Filtration Finally be Easy?Kidney international reports · 2026Article
- Quantitative Analysis of a Novel Metabolite Panel to Estimate GFR (Panel eGFR) in Serum and Plasma Using LC-MS/MS.Clinical chemistry · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Assessing glomerular filtration rate (GFR) is critical for diagnosis, staging, and management of kidney disease. However, accuracy of estimated GFR (eGFR) is limited by large errors (>30% error present in >10-50% of patients), adversely impacting patient care. Errors often result from variation across populations of non-GFR determinants affecting the filtration markers used to estimate GFR. We hypothesized that combining multiple filtration markers with non-overlapping non-GFR determinants into a panel GFR could improve eGFR accuracy, extending current recognition that adding cystatin C to serum creatinine improves accuracy. Non-GFR determinants of markers can affect the accuracy of eGFR in two ways: first, increased variability in the non-GFR determinants of some filtration markers among application populations compared to the development population may result in outlying values for those markers. Second, systematic differences in the non-GFR determinants of some markers between application and development populations can lead to biased estimates in the application populations. Here, we propose and evaluate methods for estimating GFR based on multiple markers in applications with potentially higher rates of outlying predictors than in development data. We apply transfer learning to address systematic differences between application and development populations. We evaluated a panel of 8 markers (5 metabolites and 3 low molecular weight proteins) in 3,554 participants from 9 studies. Results show that contamination in two strongly predictive markers can increase imprecision by more than two-fold, but outlier identification with robust estimation can restore precision nearly fully to uncontaminated data. Furthermore, transfer learning can yield similar results with even modest training set sample size. Combining both approaches addresses both sources of error in GFR estimates. Once the laboratory challenge of developing a validated targeted assay for additional metabolites is overcome, these methods can inform the use of a panel eGFR across diverse clinical settings, ensuring accuracy despite differing non-GFR determinants.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.