ArticleKidney international reports2026
Characterizing the NIH Activity and Chronicity Indices in 2 Independent Lupus Nephritis Cohorts.
Article in Kidney international reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Kidney Biopsy and Prognosis in Lupus Nephritis: Histological Predictors of Renal Outcome-A Narrative Review.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The inclusion of National Institutes of Health (NIH) activity index (AI) and chronicity index (CI) in the ISN/Renal Pathology Society (ISN/RPS) classification of lupus nephritis (LN) aims to provide a precise characterization of the amount of active and chronic lesions next to lupus class. We here investigate the distribution of NIH indices within 2 international LN cohorts, their relationship with the ISN/RPS classes and which lesions most significantly contribute to these scores. Methods: We collected 194 biopsies from 2 cohorts of patients with LN and calculated the NIH AI and CI according to the revised 2018 ISN/RPS classification. For statistical analysis we mainly used nonparametric tests. An exploratory factor analysis was applied to the lesion scores. Results: The NIH AI score was usually medium-low, reaching a maximum value of 16 of 24, whereas the NIH CI reached 10 of 12. Both indices were higher in classes III, IV, and mixed compared with others ( Conclusion: This study revealed key aspects of the NIH AI and CI that may guide future modifications of these indices, leading to a more balanced and reliable scoring system.
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.