ArticleFrontiers in medicine2026
External validation of the international IgA nephropathy prediction tool in a Thai cohort.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2026. 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
Objectives: To externally validate the performance of the International IgA Nephropathy Prediction Tool (IIgANPT) in a Thai cohort with biopsy-proven IgA nephropathy and to compare the predictive accuracy of model versions with and without the race variable. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study to externally validate the IIgANPT in Thai adults with biopsy-proven IgAN at a tertiary-care center. Both model versions (with and without race) were evaluated. The primary outcome was a composite of a sustained 50% decline in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) or progression to end-stage renal disease (ESKD). Model performance was assessed using discrimination (C-statistic, AUC), calibration (slope and plots), and risk stratification with Kaplan-Meier analysis. Results: A total of 133 patients were included, with a median follow-up of 3.4 years. During follow-up, 45 patients (33.8%) reached the renal endpoint. The model demonstrated good discrimination, with C-statistics of 0.753 (95% CI 0.68-0.82) and 0.754 (95% CI 0.69-0.82) for models with and without race, respectively. Five-year AUC values were similar (0.790 vs. 0.787). Calibration was broadly preserved, although confidence intervals around calibration slopes were wide. Risk stratification showed clear separation of kidney survival across predefined risk groups (log-rank Conclusion: The IIgANPT demonstrated good discrimination and effective risk stratification in this Thai cohort of patients with biopsy-proven IgAN. Calibration point estimates were close to the ideal range, although precision was limited by wide confidence intervals. Both model versions performed similarly, suggesting that exclusion of the race variable may have limited impact on prognostic performance in this relatively homogeneous population.
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.