MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1493472221 · doi:10.1159/000430084

Peritoneal Dialysis for Chronic Congestive Heart Failure

2015· review· en· W1493472221 on OpenAlexaff
Karlien François, Claudio Ronco, Joanne M. Bargman

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood Purification · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDialysis and Renal Disease Management
Canadian institutionsToronto General HospitalUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCardiorenal syndromeMedicinePeritoneal dialysisHeart failureIntensive care medicineDialysisCardiologyInternal medicineKidney diseaseHemodialysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Maladaptive responses between a failing heart and the kidneys ultimately lead to permanent chronic kidney disease, referred to as cardiorenal syndrome type 2. In this narrative review, we discuss the pathophysiological pathways in the progression of cardiorenal failure and review the current evidence on peritoneal dialysis as a treatment strategy in cardiorenal syndrome type 2. A patient with heart failure can present with clinical symptoms related to venous congestion even in the absence of end-stage renal disease. Diuretics remain the cornerstone for the treatment of fluid overload related to heart failure. However, with chronic use, diuretic resistance can supervene. When medical therapy is no longer able to relieve congestive symptoms, ultrafiltration might be needed. Patients with heart failure tolerate well the gentle rate of fluid removal through peritoneal dialysis. Recent publications suggest a positive impact of starting peritoneal dialysis in patients with cardiorenal syndrome type 2 on the hospitalisation rate, functional status and quality of life.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.049
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.294 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations53
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBlood PurificationSame topicDialysis and Renal Disease ManagementFrench-language works237,207