MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2007106668 · doi:10.3126/jpn.v3i5.7871

The role of electron microscopy in kidney lesions: A review of its diagnostic importance

2013· review· en· W2007106668 on OpenAlexaff
AD Pant, Kim Solez

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pathology of Nepal · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRenal and Vascular Pathologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRenal pathologyElectron microscopePathologyMicroscopyKidneyBiopsyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Electron microscopy is a technology which was at one time widely used for renal as well as non-renal benign and malignant diseases, but its use has been rapidly declining as hospitals all over the world cut down on expenses. This leaves the renal pathologist with only light microscopy and immunofl uorescence at his disposal to diagnose diseases. Few studies have stated the importance of electron microscopy in routine renal biopsy reporting. We look at different cases where electron microscopy has been helpful in diagnosis and review the literature to assess the role this investigative modality still has to play in modern renal pathology. Journal of Pathology of Nepal (2013) Vol. 3, No.1, Issue 5, 411-415 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3126/jpn.v3i5.7871

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)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.747
Threshold uncertainty score0.808

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.336 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations6
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Pathology of NepalSame topicRenal and Vascular PathologiesFrench-language works237,207