Associations between depressive symptoms and disease progression in older patients with chronic kidney disease: results of the EQUAL study

Background Depressive symptoms are associated with adverse clinical outcomes in patients with end-stage kidney disease; however, few small studies have examined this association in patients with earlier phases of chronic kidney disease (CKD). We studied associations between baseline depressive symptoms and clinical outcomes in older patients with advanced CKD and examined whether these associations differed depending on sex. Methods CKD patients (>= 65 years; estimated glomerular filtration rate <= 20 mL/min/1.73 m(2)) were included from a European multicentre prospective cohort between 2012 and 2019. Depressive symptoms were measured by the five-item Mental Health Inventory (cut-off <= 70; 0-100 scale). Cox proportional hazard analysis was used to study associations between depressive symptoms and time to dialysis initiation, all-cause mortality and these outcomes combined. A joint model was used to study the association between depressive symptoms and kidney function over time. Analyses were adjusted for potential baseline confounders. Results Overall kidney function decline in 1326 patients was -0.12 mL/min/1.73 m(2)/month. A total of 515 patients showed depressive symptoms. No significant association was found between depressive symptoms and kidney function over time (P = 0.08). Unlike women, men with depressive symptoms had an increased mortality rate compared with those without symptoms [adjusted hazard ratio 1.41 (95% confidence interval 1.03-1.93)]. Depressive symptoms were not significantly associated with a higher hazard of dialysis initiation, or with the combined outcome (i.e. dialysis initiation and all-cause mortality). Conclusions There was no significant association between depressive symptoms at baseline and decline in kidney function over time in older patients with advanced CKD. Depressive symptoms at baseline were associated with a higher mortality rate in men

The Crowdsourced Replication Initiative: Investigating Immigration and Social Policy Preferences. Executive Report.

In an era of mass migration, social scientists, populist parties and social movements raise concerns over the future of immigration-destination societies. What impacts does this have on policy and social solidarity? Comparative cross-national research, relying mostly on secondary data, has findings in different directions. There is a threat of selective model reporting and lack of replicability. The heterogeneity of countries obscures attempts to clearly define data-generating models. P-hacking and HARKing lurk among standard research practices in this area.This project employs crowdsourcing to address these issues. It draws on replication, deliberation, meta-analysis and harnessing the power of many minds at once. The Crowdsourced Replication Initiative carries two main goals, (a) to better investigate the linkage between immigration and social policy preferences across countries, and (b) to develop crowdsourcing as a social science method. The Executive Report provides short reviews of the area of social policy preferences and immigration, and the methods and impetus behind crowdsourcing plus a description of the entire project. Three main areas of findings will appear in three papers, that are registered as PAPs or in process

The Crowdsourced Replication Initiative: Investigating Immigration and Social Policy Preferences. Executive Report

Breznau N, Rinke EM, Wuttke A, et al. The Crowdsourced Replication Initiative: Investigating Immigration and Social Policy Preferences. Executive Report. 2019

Observing many researchers using the same data and hypothesis reveals a hidden universe of uncertainty.

This study explores how researchers' analytical choices affect the reliability of scientific findings. Most discussions of reliability problems in science focus on systematic biases. We broaden the lens to emphasize the idiosyncrasy of conscious and unconscious decisions that researchers make during data analysis. We coordinated 161 researchers in 73 research teams and observed their research decisions as they used the same data to independently test the same prominent social science hypothesis: that greater immigration reduces support for social policies among the public. In this typical case of social science research, research teams reported both widely diverging numerical findings and substantive conclusions despite identical start conditions. Researchers' expertise, prior beliefs, and expectations barely predict the wide variation in research outcomes. More than 95% of the total variance in numerical results remains unexplained even after qualitative coding of all identifiable decisions in each team's workflow. This reveals a universe of uncertainty that remains hidden when considering a single study in isolation. The idiosyncratic nature of how researchers' results and conclusions varied is a previously underappreciated explanation for why many scientific hypotheses remain contested. These results call for greater epistemic humility and clarity in reporting scientific findings

Observing Many Researchers Using the Same Data and Hypothesis Reveals a Hidden Universe of Uncertainty

Breznau N, Rinke EM, Wuttke A, et al. Observing Many Researchers Using the Same Data and Hypothesis Reveals a Hidden Universe of Uncertainty. 2021.This study explores how researchers’ analytical choices affect the reliability of scientific findings. Most discussions of reliability problems in science focus on systematic biases. We broaden the lens to include conscious and unconscious decisions that researchers make during data analysis and that may lead to diverging results. We coordinated 161 researchers in 73 research teams and observed their research decisions as they used the same data to independently test the same prominent social science hypothesis: that greater immigration reduces support for social policies among the public. In this typical case of research based on secondary data, we find that research teams reported widely diverging numerical findings and substantive conclusions despite identical start conditions. Researchers’ expertise, prior beliefs, and expectations barely predicted the wide variation in research outcomes. More than 90% of the total variance in numerical results remained unexplained even after accounting for research decisions identified via qualitative coding of each team’s workflow. This reveals a universe of uncertainty that is hidden when considering a single study in isolation. The idiosyncratic nature of how researchers’ results and conclusions varied is a new explanation for why many scientific hypotheses remain contested. It calls for greater humility and clarity in reporting scientific findings

Observing many researchers using the same data and hypothesis reveals a hidden universe of uncertainty

This study explores how researchers' analytical choices affect the reliability of scientific findings. Most discussions of reliability problems in science focus on systematic biases. We broaden the lens to emphasize the idiosyncrasy of conscious and unconscious decisions that researchers make during data analysis. We coordinated 161 researchers in 73 research teams and observed their research decisions as they used the same data to independently test the same prominent social science hypothesis: that greater immigration reduces support for social policies among the public. In this typical case of social science research, research teams reported both widely diverging numerical findings and substantive conclusions despite identical start conditions. Researchers' expertise, prior beliefs, and expectations barely predict the wide variation in research outcomes. More than 95% of the total variance in numerical results remains unexplained even after qualitative coding of all identifiable decisions in each team's workflow. This reveals a universe of uncertainty that remains hidden when considering a single study in isolation. The idiosyncratic nature of how researchers' results and conclusions varied is a previously underappreciated explanation for why many scientific hypotheses remain contested. These results call for greater epistemic humility and clarity in reporting scientific findings

How Many Replicators Does It Take to Achieve Reliability? Investigating Researcher Variability in a Crowdsourced Replication

The paper reports findings from a crowdsourced replication. Eighty-four replicator teams attempted to verify results reported in an original study by running the same models with the same data. The replication involved an experimental condition. A “transparent” group received the original study and code, and an “opaque” group received the same underlying study but with only a methods section and description of the regression coefficients without size or significance, and no code. The transparent group mostly verified the original study (95.5%), while the opaque group had less success (89.4%). Qualitative investigation of the replicators’ workflows reveals many causes of non-verification. Two categories of these causes are hypothesized, routine and non-routine. After correcting non-routine errors in the research process to ensure that the results reflect a level of quality that should be present in ‘real-world’ research, the rate of verification was 96.1 in the transparent group and 92.4 in the opaque group. Two conclusions follow: (1) Although high, the verification rate suggests that it would take a minimum of three replicators per study to achieve replication reliability of at least 95 confidence assuming ecological validity in this controlled setting, and (2) like any type of scientific research, replication is prone to errors that derive from routine and undeliberate actions in the research process. The latter suggests that idiosyncratic researcher variability might provide a key to understanding part of the “reliability crisis” in social and behavioral science and is a reminder of the importance of transparent and well documented workflows

Kidney Failure Prediction Models: A Comprehensive External Validation Study in Patients with Advanced CKD

Background: Various prediction models have been developed to predict the risk of kidney failure in patients with CKD. However, guideline-recommended models have yet to be compared head to head, their validation in patients with advanced CKD is lacking, and most do not account for competing risks.Methods: To externally validate 11 existing models of kidney failure, taking the competing risk of death into account, we included patients with advanced CKD from two large cohorts: the European Quality Study (EQUAL), an ongoing European prospective, multicenter cohort study of older patients with advanced CKD, and the Swedish Renal Registry (SRR), an ongoing registry of nephrology-referred patients with CKD in Sweden. The outcome of the models was kidney failure (defined as RRT-treated ESKD). We assessed model performance with discrimination and calibration.Results: The study included 1580 patients from EQUAL and 13,489 patients from SRR. The average c statistic over the 11 validated models was 0.74 in EQUAL and 0.80 in SRR, compared with 0.89 in previous validations. Most models with longer prediction horizons overestimated the risk of kidney failure considerably. The 5-year Kidney Failure Risk Equation (KFRE) overpredicted risk by 10%-18%. The four- and eight-variable 2-year KFRE and the 4-year Grams model showed excellent calibration and good discrimination in both cohorts.Conclusions: Some existing models can accurately predict kidney failure in patients with advanced CKD. KFRE performed well for a shorter time frame (2 years), despite not accounting for competing events. Models predicting over a longer time frame (5 years) overestimated risk because of the competing risk of death. The Grams model, which accounts for the latter, is suitable for longer-term predictions (4 years)

Predicting Kidney Failure, Cardiovascular Disease and Death in Advanced CKD Patients

Introduction: Predicting the timing and occurrence of kidney replacement therapy (KRT), cardiovascular events, and death among patients with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD) is clinically useful and relevant. We aimed to externally validate a recently developed CKD G4+ risk calculator for these outcomes and to assess its potential clinical impact in guiding vascular access placement. Methods: We included 1517 patients from the European Quality (EQUAL) study, a European multicentre prospective cohort study of nephrology-referred advanced CKD patients aged ≥65 years. Model performance was assessed based on discrimination and calibration. Potential clinical utility for timing of referral for vascular access placement was studied with diagnostic measures and decision curve analysis (DCA). Results: The model showed a good discrimination for KRT and “death after KRT,” with 2-year concordance (C) statistics of 0.74 and 0.76, respectively. Discrimination for cardiovascular events (2-year C-statistic: 0.70) and overall death (2-year C-statistic: 0.61) was poorer. Calibration was fairly accurate. Decision curves illustrated that using the model to guide vascular access referral would generally lead to less unused arteriovenous fistulas (AVFs) than following estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) thresholds. Conclusion: This study shows moderate to good predictive performance of the model in an older cohort of nephrology-referred patients with advanced CKD. Using the model to guide referral for vascular access placement has potential in combating unnecessary vascular surgeries

The association between TMAO, CMPF and clinical outcomes in advanced CKD; results from the EQUAL study

Background Trimethylamine N-oxide (TMAO), a metabolite from red meat and fish consumption, plays a role in promoting cardiovascular events. However, data regarding TMAO and its impact on clinical outcomes are inconclusive, possibly due to its undetermined dietary source. Objectives We hypothesized that circulating TMAO derived from fish intake might cause less harm compared with red meat sources by examining the concomitant level of 3-carboxy-4-methyl-5-propyl-2-furanpropionate (CMPF), a known biomarker of fish intake, and investigated the association between TMAO, CMPF, and outcomes. Methods Patients were recruited from the European QUALity (EQUAL) Study on treatment in advanced chronic kidney disease among individuals aged >= 65 y whose estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) had dropped for the first time to <= 20 mL/min per 1.73 m(2) during the last 6 mo. The association between TMAO, CMPF, and outcomes including all-cause mortality and kidney replacement therapy (KRT) was assessed among 737 patients. Patients were further stratified by median cutoffs of TMAO and CMPF, suggesting high/low red meat and fish intake. Results During a median of 39 mo of follow-up, 232 patients died. Higher TMAO was independently associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality (multivariable HR: 1.46; 95% CI: 1.17, 1.83). Higher CMPF was associated with a reduced risk of both all-cause mortality (HR: 0.79; 95% CI: 0.71, 0.89) and KRT (HR: 0.80; 95% CI: 0.71, 0.90), independently of TMAO and other clinically relevant confounders. In comparison to patients with low TMAO and CMPF, patients with low TMAO and high CMPF had reduced risk of all-cause mortality (adjusted HR: 0.49; 95% CI: 0.31, 0.73), whereas those with high TMAO and high CMPF showed no association across adjusted models. Conclusions High CMPF conferred an independent role in health benefits and might even counteract the unfavorable association between TMAO and outcomes. Whether higher circulating CMPF concentrations are due to fish consumption, and/or if CMPF is a protective factor, remains to be verified