ArticleLupus science & medicine2025
Validation cohort of a tool to predict proliferative histological class in lupus nephritis based on clinical and laboratory data: LUCAS Study (Lupus Nephritis Class Assessment System).
Article in Lupus science & medicine, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesPrimary: To validate a previously developed lupus nephritis (LN) histologic class predictor tool (III or IV±(V) vs V). In this instrument, urinary sediment, anti-dsDNA antibody and serum creatinine were predictor variables. Secondary: To evaluate its accuracy in different cut levels of urinary red cell count and LN patient's profile that may be useful to guide diagnosis and treatment, especially when kidney biopsy is not available.
methodsA retrospective, cross-sectional study of 196 patients with SLE who underwent kidney biopsy, analysing sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, accuracy, and positive and negative likelihood ratios.
results81.6% of the patients were female, 60.2% were non-Caucasian and the mean age at the time of the biopsy was 31.2±10.4 years. 30 patients presented class III, 104 class IV, 36 class V and 26 mixed classes (7 class III+V and 19 class IV+V). In the validation cohort, sensitivity was 90.6%, specifically was 66.7%, positive predictive value was 92.4% and accuracy was 86.2%, in predicting proliferative classes (class III or IV(±V) vs class V). There was no difference when analysing urinary red cell counts >5 x 10
conclusionsThe validation of a tool to predict proliferative histologic class showed good performance, like that found in the development cohort, without difference in accuracy with different cut-off points for urinary red cell count or number of flares of LN. It is easily applied and can be accessed via the internet (https://nefritelupica.medicalcore.com.br).
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.