English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Objective  To assess the clinical practicability of the ensemble learning model established by Liu et al. in estimating glomerular filtration rate (GFR) and validate whether it is a better model than the Asian modified Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) equation in a cohort of Chinese chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients in an external validation study.    Methods  According to the ensemble learning model and the Asian modified CKD-EPI equation, we calculated estimated GFR ensemble  and GFR CKD-EPI , separately. Diagnostic performance of the two models was assessed and compared by correlation coefficient, regression equation, Bland–Altman analysis, bias, precision and P 30  under the premise of  99m Tc-diethylenetriaminepentaacetic acid ( 99m Tc-DTPA) dual plasma sample clearance method as reference method for GFR measurement (mGFR).    Results  A total of 158 Chinese CKD patients were included in our external validation study. The GFR ensemble  was highly related with mGFR, with the correlation coefficient of 0.94. However, regression equation of GFR ensemble  = 0.66*mGFR + 23.05, the regression coefficient was far away from one, and the intercept was wide. Compared with the Asian modified CKD-EPI equation, the diagnostic performance of the ensemble learning model also demonstrated a wider 95% limit of agreement in Bland-Altman analysis (52.6 vs 42.4 ml/min/1.73 m 2 ), a poorer bias (8.0 vs 1.0 ml/min/1.73 m 2 ,  P  = 0.02), an inferior precision (18.4 vs 12.7 ml/min/1.73 m 2 ,  P  < 0.001) and a lower P 30  (58.9% vs 74.1%,  P  < 0.001).    Conclusions  Our study showed that the ensemble learning model cannot replace the Asian modified CKD-EPI equation for the first choice for GFR estimation in overall Chinese CKD patients.    Supplementary Information  The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12882-021-02595-5.

bmc nephrology

The ensemble learning model is not better than the Asian modified CKD-EPI equation for glomerular filtration rate estimation in Chinese CKD patients in the external validation study