{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.020428015564202335, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0048638132295719845, 'mean_word_length': 5.952702702702703, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Implications of different laboratory-based incident diabetic kidney disease definitions on comparative effectiveness studies.

BACKGROUND
Comparative effectiveness studies using electronic health records (EHRs) often define chronic kidney disease (CKD) outcomes using laboratory-based definitions. Recommendations for defining CKD require multiple longitudinal measurements. The implications of applying these definitions to EHR data are poorly understood.


METHODS
Using a cohort of 36,025 individuals with diabetes from three health systems who initiated a new glucose-lowering medication, we compared concordance and CKD incidence rates and rate ratios for glucose-lowering medication classes for laboratory-based CKD definitions requiring one versus multiple abnormal tests.


RESULTS & CONCLUSION
CKD incidence rates differed more than twofold based on the definition. Reassuring for CER, incidence rate ratios for glucose-lowering medication classes on risk of developing CKD were relatively unaffected by CKD definition.