Skip to main content
. 2021 Apr 12;11:7894. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-86955-z

Table 4.

Correlation between baseline eGFR and eGFR decreased rates (random effects) in patients with DM.

Random effects Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
Estimate (95% CI) Estimate (95% CI) Estimate (95% CI)
Without within-subject mean centering for the time variable
SD of slope, mL/min/y (GFR change) 2.27 (1.80 to 2.86) 2.08 (1.61 to 2.68) 1.48 (1.06 to 2.07)
SD of intercept, mL/min 17.76 (16.29 to 19.36) 17.70 (16.20 to 19.34) 14.34 (13.01 to 15.81)
SD of residuals 6.43 (6.22 to 6.65) 6.11 (5.80 to 6.42) 5.07 (4.70 to 5.47)
Correlation (intercept, slope) − 0.46* (− 0.62 to − 0.27) − 0.51* (− 0.68 to − 0.30) − 0.65* (− 0.81 to − 0.39)
Using within-subject mean centering for the time variable
SD of slope, mL/min/y (GFR change) 1.99 (1.62 to 2.46) 1.94 (1.53 to 2.46) 1.50 (1.03 to 2.17)
SD of intercept, mL/min 13.86 (12.73 to 15.09) 13.74 (12.59 to 15.00) 13.54 (12.30 to 14.91)
SD of residuals 5.28 (5.11 to 5.45) 4.93 (4.69 to 5.19) 5.12 (4.74 to 5.52)
Correlation (intercept, slope) − 0.25* (− 0.44 to − 0.04) − 0.30* (− 0.51 to − 0.05) − 0.40* (− 0.67 to − 0.05)

Model 1: sex and baseline age. Model 2: sex, baseline age, BMI, and SBP. Model 3: sex, baseline age, BMI, SBP, smoking, HbA1c, and UPCR.

eGFR estimated glomerular filtration rate, DM diabetes mellitus, CI confidence interval, BMI body mass index, SBP systolic blood pressure, HbA1c hemoglobin A1c, UPCR urine protein-creatinine ratio.

*P < 0.05.