Panel estimated Glomerular Filtration Rate (GFR): Statistical considerations for maximizing accuracy in diverse clinical populations.

Assessing glomerular filtration rate (GFR) is critical for diagnosis, staging, and management of kidney disease. However, accuracy of estimated GFR (eGFR) is limited by large errors (>30% error present in >10-50% of patients), adversely impacting patient care. Errors often result from variatio...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Nora F Fino, Lesley A Inker, Tom Greene, Ogechi M Adingwupu, Josef Coresh, Jesse Seegmiller, Michael G Shlipak, Tazeen H Jafar, Roberto Kalil, Veronica T Costa E Silva, Vilmundur Gudnason, Andrew S Levey, Ben Haaland
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Public Library of Science (PLoS) 2024-01-01
Series:PLoS ONE
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0313154
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1849469967988162560
author Nora F Fino
Lesley A Inker
Tom Greene
Ogechi M Adingwupu
Josef Coresh
Jesse Seegmiller
Michael G Shlipak
Tazeen H Jafar
Roberto Kalil
Veronica T Costa E Silva
Vilmundur Gudnason
Andrew S Levey
Ben Haaland
author_facet Nora F Fino
Lesley A Inker
Tom Greene
Ogechi M Adingwupu
Josef Coresh
Jesse Seegmiller
Michael G Shlipak
Tazeen H Jafar
Roberto Kalil
Veronica T Costa E Silva
Vilmundur Gudnason
Andrew S Levey
Ben Haaland
author_sort Nora F Fino
collection DOAJ
description Assessing glomerular filtration rate (GFR) is critical for diagnosis, staging, and management of kidney disease. However, accuracy of estimated GFR (eGFR) is limited by large errors (>30% error present in >10-50% of patients), adversely impacting patient care. Errors often result from variation across populations of non-GFR determinants affecting the filtration markers used to estimate GFR. We hypothesized that combining multiple filtration markers with non-overlapping non-GFR determinants into a panel GFR could improve eGFR accuracy, extending current recognition that adding cystatin C to serum creatinine improves accuracy. Non-GFR determinants of markers can affect the accuracy of eGFR in two ways: first, increased variability in the non-GFR determinants of some filtration markers among application populations compared to the development population may result in outlying values for those markers. Second, systematic differences in the non-GFR determinants of some markers between application and development populations can lead to biased estimates in the application populations. Here, we propose and evaluate methods for estimating GFR based on multiple markers in applications with potentially higher rates of outlying predictors than in development data. We apply transfer learning to address systematic differences between application and development populations. We evaluated a panel of 8 markers (5 metabolites and 3 low molecular weight proteins) in 3,554 participants from 9 studies. Results show that contamination in two strongly predictive markers can increase imprecision by more than two-fold, but outlier identification with robust estimation can restore precision nearly fully to uncontaminated data. Furthermore, transfer learning can yield similar results with even modest training set sample size. Combining both approaches addresses both sources of error in GFR estimates. Once the laboratory challenge of developing a validated targeted assay for additional metabolites is overcome, these methods can inform the use of a panel eGFR across diverse clinical settings, ensuring accuracy despite differing non-GFR determinants.
format Article
id doaj-art-e1a21157147f4d9da548f456c1b6e988
institution Kabale University
issn 1932-6203
language English
publishDate 2024-01-01
publisher Public Library of Science (PLoS)
record_format Article
series PLoS ONE
spelling doaj-art-e1a21157147f4d9da548f456c1b6e9882025-08-20T03:25:18ZengPublic Library of Science (PLoS)PLoS ONE1932-62032024-01-011912e031315410.1371/journal.pone.0313154Panel estimated Glomerular Filtration Rate (GFR): Statistical considerations for maximizing accuracy in diverse clinical populations.Nora F FinoLesley A InkerTom GreeneOgechi M AdingwupuJosef CoreshJesse SeegmillerMichael G ShlipakTazeen H JafarRoberto KalilVeronica T Costa E SilvaVilmundur GudnasonAndrew S LeveyBen HaalandAssessing glomerular filtration rate (GFR) is critical for diagnosis, staging, and management of kidney disease. However, accuracy of estimated GFR (eGFR) is limited by large errors (>30% error present in >10-50% of patients), adversely impacting patient care. Errors often result from variation across populations of non-GFR determinants affecting the filtration markers used to estimate GFR. We hypothesized that combining multiple filtration markers with non-overlapping non-GFR determinants into a panel GFR could improve eGFR accuracy, extending current recognition that adding cystatin C to serum creatinine improves accuracy. Non-GFR determinants of markers can affect the accuracy of eGFR in two ways: first, increased variability in the non-GFR determinants of some filtration markers among application populations compared to the development population may result in outlying values for those markers. Second, systematic differences in the non-GFR determinants of some markers between application and development populations can lead to biased estimates in the application populations. Here, we propose and evaluate methods for estimating GFR based on multiple markers in applications with potentially higher rates of outlying predictors than in development data. We apply transfer learning to address systematic differences between application and development populations. We evaluated a panel of 8 markers (5 metabolites and 3 low molecular weight proteins) in 3,554 participants from 9 studies. Results show that contamination in two strongly predictive markers can increase imprecision by more than two-fold, but outlier identification with robust estimation can restore precision nearly fully to uncontaminated data. Furthermore, transfer learning can yield similar results with even modest training set sample size. Combining both approaches addresses both sources of error in GFR estimates. Once the laboratory challenge of developing a validated targeted assay for additional metabolites is overcome, these methods can inform the use of a panel eGFR across diverse clinical settings, ensuring accuracy despite differing non-GFR determinants.https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0313154
spellingShingle Nora F Fino
Lesley A Inker
Tom Greene
Ogechi M Adingwupu
Josef Coresh
Jesse Seegmiller
Michael G Shlipak
Tazeen H Jafar
Roberto Kalil
Veronica T Costa E Silva
Vilmundur Gudnason
Andrew S Levey
Ben Haaland
Panel estimated Glomerular Filtration Rate (GFR): Statistical considerations for maximizing accuracy in diverse clinical populations.
PLoS ONE
title Panel estimated Glomerular Filtration Rate (GFR): Statistical considerations for maximizing accuracy in diverse clinical populations.
title_full Panel estimated Glomerular Filtration Rate (GFR): Statistical considerations for maximizing accuracy in diverse clinical populations.
title_fullStr Panel estimated Glomerular Filtration Rate (GFR): Statistical considerations for maximizing accuracy in diverse clinical populations.
title_full_unstemmed Panel estimated Glomerular Filtration Rate (GFR): Statistical considerations for maximizing accuracy in diverse clinical populations.
title_short Panel estimated Glomerular Filtration Rate (GFR): Statistical considerations for maximizing accuracy in diverse clinical populations.
title_sort panel estimated glomerular filtration rate gfr statistical considerations for maximizing accuracy in diverse clinical populations
url https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0313154
work_keys_str_mv AT noraffino panelestimatedglomerularfiltrationrategfrstatisticalconsiderationsformaximizingaccuracyindiverseclinicalpopulations
AT lesleyainker panelestimatedglomerularfiltrationrategfrstatisticalconsiderationsformaximizingaccuracyindiverseclinicalpopulations
AT tomgreene panelestimatedglomerularfiltrationrategfrstatisticalconsiderationsformaximizingaccuracyindiverseclinicalpopulations
AT ogechimadingwupu panelestimatedglomerularfiltrationrategfrstatisticalconsiderationsformaximizingaccuracyindiverseclinicalpopulations
AT josefcoresh panelestimatedglomerularfiltrationrategfrstatisticalconsiderationsformaximizingaccuracyindiverseclinicalpopulations
AT jesseseegmiller panelestimatedglomerularfiltrationrategfrstatisticalconsiderationsformaximizingaccuracyindiverseclinicalpopulations
AT michaelgshlipak panelestimatedglomerularfiltrationrategfrstatisticalconsiderationsformaximizingaccuracyindiverseclinicalpopulations
AT tazeenhjafar panelestimatedglomerularfiltrationrategfrstatisticalconsiderationsformaximizingaccuracyindiverseclinicalpopulations
AT robertokalil panelestimatedglomerularfiltrationrategfrstatisticalconsiderationsformaximizingaccuracyindiverseclinicalpopulations
AT veronicatcostaesilva panelestimatedglomerularfiltrationrategfrstatisticalconsiderationsformaximizingaccuracyindiverseclinicalpopulations
AT vilmundurgudnason panelestimatedglomerularfiltrationrategfrstatisticalconsiderationsformaximizingaccuracyindiverseclinicalpopulations
AT andrewslevey panelestimatedglomerularfiltrationrategfrstatisticalconsiderationsformaximizingaccuracyindiverseclinicalpopulations
AT benhaaland panelestimatedglomerularfiltrationrategfrstatisticalconsiderationsformaximizingaccuracyindiverseclinicalpopulations