MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2004072056 · doi:10.1111/jsap.12150

Biomarkers in the assessment of acute and chronic kidney diseases in the dog and cat

2013· review· en· W2004072056 on OpenAlexaff
A. R. Cobrin, Shauna L. Blois, Stephen A. Kruth, Anthony C. G. Abrams‐Ogg, Cate Dewey

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Small Animal Practice · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Kidney Disease and Diabetes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIntensive care medicineAcute kidney injuryKidneyPathologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In both human and veterinary medicine, diagnosing and staging renal disease can be difficult. Measurement of glomerular filtration rate is considered the gold standard for assessing renal function but methods for its assessment can be technically challenging and impractical. The main parameters used to diagnose acute and chronic kidney disease include circulating creatinine and urea concentrations, and urine-specific gravity. However, these parameters can be insensitive. Therefore, there is a need for better methods to diagnose and monitor patients with renal disease. The use of renal biomarkers is increasing in human and veterinary medicine for the diagnosis and monitoring of acute and chronic kidney diseases. An ideal biomarker would identify site and severity of injury, and correlate with renal function, among other qualities. This article will review the advantages and limitations of renal biomarkers that have been used in dogs and cats, as well as some markers used in humans that may be adapted for veterinary use. In the future, measuring a combination of biomarkers will likely be a useful approach in the diagnosis of kidney disorders.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.385
Teacher spread0.345 · 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 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

Citations78
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Small Animal PracticeSame topicChronic Kidney Disease and DiabetesFrench-language works237,207