MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1970249266 · doi:10.1159/000065377

A Conceptual Approach to the Patient with Metabolic Acidosis

2002· article· en· W1970249266 on OpenAlexaff
Mohammad A. Shafiee, Kamel S. Kamel, M. L. Halperin

Bibliographic record

Venue˜The œNephron journals/Nephron journals · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiet and metabolism studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBicarbonateAcidosisMetabolic acidosisInternal medicineEndocrinologyAcid–base reactionNet acid excretionBase (topology)MedicineChemistryUrineBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We shall illustrate that management of patients with an acid-base disorder could be improved if the acid-base analysis was based on a better understanding of basic concepts of physiology. Three concepts of acid-base physiology and their clinical implications are emphasized in a patient with diabetic ketoacidosis. First, when an acid is produced from neutral precursors in the body, there is a net increase in the number of hydrogen ions (H(+)) and new anions. The corollary is that H(+) will be removed when the accompanying anion is metabolized to a neutral end-product or is excreted in the urine with H(+) or ammonium (NH(4)(+)). Second, buffering of H(+) is beneficial if H(+) are removed by bicarbonate rather than being able to bind to proteins. This latter function depends on having a low tissue PCO(2), due to a combination of hyperventilation plus an adequate blood flow rate to vital organs. Third, the kidneys add new bicarbonate to the body when NH(4)(+) is excreted with chloride ions.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.010
Scholarly communication0.0040.006
Open science0.0030.006
Research integrity0.0070.013
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations7
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue˜The œNephron journals/Nephron journalsSame topicDiet and metabolism studiesFrench-language works237,207