MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Cardiovascular Disease Reduction in the Outpatient Kidney Transplant Clinic

2003· article· en· W1997118394 on OpenAlexaff
Bryce Kiberd, Tammy Keough-Ryan, Roman Panek

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Transplantation · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRenal Transplantation Outcomes and Treatments
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDiseaseOutpatient clinicIntensive care medicineKidney transplantReduction (mathematics)Kidney diseaseKidney transplantationInternal medicineKidney

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is an important cause of death in kidney transplant recipients. Future CVD mortality was estimated by a risk calculator in all patients (n = 439) with a functioning transplant (>6 months), followed at our center. In addition to CURRENT mortality rates, an OPTIMAL rate (adding anti-hypertensive and lipid-lowering therapy in uncontrolled patients) and an HISTORIC rate (higher systolic blood pressures and the absence of statin use in our population 5 years ago) were also calculated. Overall, the predicted CURRENT CVD mortality rates are 0.82 (95% CI 0.81-0.83) of HISTORIC rates. Predicted OPTIMAL CVD mortality rates are 0.90 (95% CI 0.87-0.92) of CURRENT rates. To achieve OPTIMAL rates, a 27% increase in blood pressure and lipid-lowering drug use is required. There were few contraindications to these medications, implying that physician prescribing was the major barrier to minimizing risk. Despite OPTIMAL rates, the transplant population's relative risk is 2.3 (median, 95% CI 2.1-2.5) times higher than that in the general population. Therefore, targeted therapy to reduce CVD risk can have substantial benefit, but CVD mortality may continue to exceed that in the general population.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.266 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations24
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of TransplantationSame topicRenal Transplantation Outcomes and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207