ArticleClinical rheumatology2025
Development and validation of non-invasive prediction models for assessing kidney histopathological activity index in lupus nephritis.
Article in Clinical rheumatology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo develop and validate prediction models for estimating the activity index (AI) of kidney histopathology in lupus nephritis (LN) using clinical and laboratory data.
methodsThis study used single-center data from patients with kidney biopsy-confirmed LN between January 2012 and March 2022. The development and validation datasets were temporally cut. We discriminated AI > 10 and ≤ 10 as high and mild/moderate activity status, respectively. We constructed four models for AI: Model 1 included demographic information; Model 2 additionally incorporated data of systemic conditions; Model 3 further included kidney-specific conditions; and Model 4 included all the aforementioned predictors. Logistic regression was employed in Models 1 to 3, while Model 4 utilized least absolute shrinkage and selection operator for predictor selection and model building. Internal validation was performed using 1000 bootstrap resampling, while external validation was performed in the temporal validation dataset. Both calibration and discrimination metrics were evaluated.
resultsThere were 160 patients in the development dataset and 70 patients in the validation dataset. In the temporal validation, all the models achieved acceptable calibration and excellent discrimination. Model 2 which contained relatively fewer predictors achieved the highest area under the receiver operator characteristic curve of 0.86 (95% confidence interval 0.76 to 0.94).
conclusionOur Model 2 incorporating demographic and systemic indicators exhibited good performance in estimating the AI of LN. We thus provide a simple yet effective algorithm to predict AI in patients with LN, potentially aiding clinicians in non-invasively assessing disease activity and guiding treatment decisions. Key Points • We developed a prediction model (Model 2) incorporating demographic and systemic indicators to predict AI in patients with LN. • The prediction model can aid clinicians in noninvasively assessing disease activity and guiding treatment decisions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39704985What 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.