MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1993999829 · doi:10.5301/jn.5000197

Long-term risk projection and its application to nephrology research

2012· review· en· W1993999829 on OpenAlexafffund
Tanvir Chowdhury Turin, Brenda R. Hemmelgarn

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Nephrology · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Kidney Disease and Diabetes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsLife expectancyMedicineIncidence (geometry)Risk assessmentNephrologyDiseaseTerm (time)Longitudinal studyDemographyGerontologyIntensive care medicineInternal medicineEnvironmental healthPopulationPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Measures of kidney disease burden or risk estimates in nephrology research have primarily focused on the concepts of prevalence, annual incidence or relatively short-term risk such as five or ten-year risk. The concept of long-term risk is rarely used in nephrology research. This paper focuses on two long-term risk measures-lifetime risk and life expectancy. Lifetime risk is an epidemiologic measure that expresses the probability that a person who is currently free of the condition will acquire it at some time during the remainder of their expected lifespan. Life expectancy is the expected number of years of life remaining for a given group of individuals at a specified age. Key data required for estimation of lifetime risk and life expectancy are disease incidence and mortality derived by considering age in the time scale in a longitudinal study. Lifetime risks can be estimated from incidence and mortality rates derived from prospective studies whereas mortality rates are required to estimate life expectancy. Although short-term risks are important, long-term risk can be particularly beneficial for future prediction of the burden of kidney disease, and to assist in health planning and public education.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.985
Threshold uncertainty score0.817

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.095
GPT teacher head0.429
Teacher spread0.334 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations10
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of NephrologySame topicChronic Kidney Disease and DiabetesFrench-language works237,207