ArticleJournal of clinical and translational science2025
Comparing methods for glomerular filtration rate estimation.
Article in Journal of clinical and translational science, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The glomerular filtration rate (GFR), estimated from serum creatinine (SCr), is widely used in clinical practice for kidney function assessment, but SCr-based equations are limited by non-GFR determinants and may introduce inaccuracies across racial groups. Few studies have evaluated whether advanced modeling techniques enhance their performance. Methods: Using multivariable fractional polynomials (MFP), generalized additive models (GAM), random forests (RF), and gradient boosted machines (GBM), we developed four SCr-based GFR-estimating equations in a pooled data set from four cohorts ( Results: In the validation data set, the greatest bias and lowest accuracy, were observed in Black individuals for all equations across subgroups defined by race, sex, age, and eGFR. The MFP and GAM equations performed similarly to the refitted CKD-EPI SCr equation, with slight improvements in P10 and P30 in subgroups including Black individuals and females. The GBM and RF equations demonstrated smaller biases, but lower accuracy compared to other equations. Generally, differences among equations were modest overall and across subgroups. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that advanced methods provide limited improvement in SCr-based GFR estimation. Future research should focus on integrating novel biomarkers for GFR estimation and improving the feasibility of GFR measurement.
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.