MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1593706834 · doi:10.1159/000071427

Cardiovascular Risk in Peritoneal Dialysis

2003· review· en· W1593706834 on OpenAlexaff
Sarah Prichard

Bibliographic record

VenueContributions to nephrology · 2003
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDialysis and Renal Disease Management
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health CentreRoyal Victoria Regional Health CentreRoyal Victoria Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePeritoneal dialysisDiabetes mellitusHyperinsulinemiaDialysisIntensive care medicineRisk factorInternal medicineAnemiaTransplantationEndocrinologyInsulin resistance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

All patients with CKD have multiple risk factors for CVD and CAD in particular. Some of these risk factors such as age and gender cannot be modified. Others such as diabetes and hypertension are not only CVD risk factors but are also the cause of the patient's CKD. Finally there are a group of risk factors such as disturbances of mineral metabolism and oxidative stress which are present either uniquely in or are exaggerated by renal failure. PD gives patients a more atherogenic lipid and lipoprotein profile, puts them at greater risk for AGE formation and usually causes hyperinsulinemia. All of these contribute to CVD risk. However, they can also achieve excellent blood pressure control, usually easily reach targets for anemia management and have continuous ultrafiltration allowing for the maintenance of good volume status, all of which will reduce risk for CVD. All treatable risk factors should be treated early in the development of CKD and should continue through their time on dialysis and after transplantation.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.300 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations17
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueContributions to nephrologySame topicDialysis and Renal Disease ManagementFrench-language works237,207