MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1602395233 · doi:10.1159/000337836

Factors Affecting Loss of Residual Renal Function(s) in Dialysis

2012· review· en· W1602395233 on OpenAlex
Jochen G. Raimann, Thomas M. Kitzler, Nathan W. Levin

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueContributions to nephrology · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDialysis and Renal Disease Management
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineExcretory systemDialysisRenal functionEndocrine systemKidneyEndocrinologyInternal medicinePhysiologyUrologyIntensive care medicineHormone

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many physiological processes relate to two aspects of kidney function: (1) excretory and secretory (excretion of electrolytes and water, elimination of metabolic end products and uremic toxins, regulation of the acid-base status), and (2) endocrine functions (regulating bone and mineral metabolism and red blood cell production). Decreases in renal functions are known to be associated with shortened survival. The exact mechanisms for this are still to be elucidated but evidence in the literature suggests mechanisms such as adverse effects of accumulation of uremic toxins, fluid overload, inflammation and possibly loss of antioxidant functions. Knowledge of factors affecting decrease of residual renal function is currently based on observational data only. Possible strategies to preserve residual renal function have been suggested but require confirmation in adequately powered prospective trials to test their effectiveness.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.968
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.342
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