Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 343

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Mortality Risk Stratification in Chronic Kidney Disease: One Size for All Ages?

O’Hare, Ann M., Bertenthal, Daniel, Covinsky, Kenneth E., Landefeld, C. Seth, Sen, Saunak, Mehta, Kala, Steinman, Michael A., Borzecki, Ann, Walter, Louise C.·2006·Journal of the American Society of Nephrology

Abstract

Current National Kidney Foundation Kidney Disease Outcomes Quality Initiative staging criteria for chronic kidney disease (CKD) are intended to apply to all age groups. However, it is unclear whether different levels of estimated GFR (eGFR) have the same prognostic significance in older and younger patients. The study cohort was composed of Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) patients who were aged 18 to 100 yr and had at least one outpatient serum creatinine measurement between October 1, 2001, and September 30, 2002 (n=2583,911). Patients with ESRD were excluded. GFR was estimated using the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease equation using each patient's first outpatient creatinine measurement during the study period. The association of eGFR with survival was measured by age group. Twenty percent of cohort patients had an eGFR<60 ml/min per 1.73 m2, ranging from 3% among 18- to 44-yr-olds to as high as 49% among 85- to 100-yr-olds. Fifty-two percent (n=266,421) of cohort patients with an eGFR<60 ml/min per 1.73 m2 had "very" moderate reductions in eGFR into the 50- to 59-ml/min per 1.73 m2 range. The association of eGFR with mortality was weaker in the elderly than in younger age groups: Whereas severe reductions in eGFR were associated with an increased risk for death in all age groups, "very" moderate reductions in eGFR (50 to 59 ml/min per 1.73 m2) were associated with an increased adjusted risk for death only among patients who were younger than 65 yr. Age-related attenuation of the association of eGFR with mortality was also present among women and black patients. In the clinical setting, mortality risk stratification in elderly patients should not be based on the same eGFR cut points as for younger age groups and would benefit from finer categorization of the 30- to 59-ml/min per 1.73 m2 eGFR group.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1681/asn.2005090986

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 4 references

Cited by

See all 343

Metadata

Authors
O’Hare, A. M., Bertenthal, D., Covinsky, K. E., Landefeld, C. S., Sen, S., Mehta, K., Steinman, M. A., Borzecki, A., & Walter, L. C.
Venue
Journal of the American Society of Nephrology
Published
2006-03
Volume
17
Issue
3
Pages
846-853
ISSN
1046-6673 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2144352130
Cited by
343
References
4
FWCI
14.08
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Mortality Risk Stratification in Chronic Kidney Disease: One Size for All Ages? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1681/asn.2005090986
The paper
O’Hare, A. M., Bertenthal, D., Covinsky, K. E., Landefeld, C. S., Sen, S., Mehta, K., Steinman, M. A., Borzecki, A., & Walter, L. C. (2006). Mortality Risk Stratification in Chronic Kidney Disease: One Size for All Ages? Journal of the American Society of Nephrology. https://doi.org/10.1681/asn.2005090986

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.