Mechanisms of renal disease in indigenous populations: influences at work in Canadian indigenous peoples
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SUMMARY: Canadian aboriginal people experience end‐stage renal disease at rates 2.5–4 times higher than those found in the general population. Up to 60% of cases are due to diabetic end‐stage renal disease, while most of the remainder are caused by a variety of types of glomerulonephritis. The greatest increase in cases of end‐stage renal disease among aboriginal people since 1981 has been observed in those with diabetes. There appear to be three major contributing influences to the increase in diabetic end‐stage renal disease among Canadian aboriginal people. First, the rates of type 2 diabetes mellitus have increased from virtually zero to several times those seen in the general population in less than 60 years. Second, aboriginal people with diabetes have seven times the rate of diabetic end‐stage renal disease compared with their non‐aboriginal counterparts. Finally, birth rates among aboriginal people are higher than in any other segment of the population. An epidemic of diabetic end‐stage renal disease is the most important nephrological issue facing Canadian aboriginal people and threatens to overwhelm health care resources in many parts of the country unless effective early recognition and prevention programmes are established.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".