MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1983826679 · doi:10.1007/s12014-010-9047-y

The Quest for Renal Disease Proteomic Signatures: Where Should We Look?

2010· article· en· W1983826679 on OpenAlex
Ana Konvalinka, James W. Scholey, Eleftherios P. Diamandis

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

VenueClinical Proteomics · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRenal Diseases and Glomerulopathies
Canadian institutionsMount Sinai HospitalToronto General HospitalUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRenal biopsyNephrologyDiseaseProteomicsBiomarker discoveryRenal pathologyOmicsPathologyCreatinineRenal functionKidneyBioinformaticsBiopsyInternal medicineBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Renal diseases are prevalent and important. However, despite significant strides in medicine, clinical nephrology still relies on nonspecific and inadequate markers such as serum creatinine and total urine protein for monitoring and diagnosis of renal disease. In case of glomerular renal diseases, biopsy is often necessary to establish the diagnosis. With new developments in proteomics technology, numerous studies have emerged, searching for better markers of kidney disease diagnosis and/or prognosis. Blood, urine, and renal biopsy tissue have been explored as potential sources of biomarkers. Some interesting individual or multiparametric biomarkers have been found; however, none have yet been validated or entered clinical practice. This review focuses on some studies of biomarkers of glomerular renal diseases, as well as addresses the question of which sample type(s) might be most promising in preliminary discovery phases of candidate proteins.

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)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.439
Threshold uncertainty score0.651

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.328 · 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