MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

How to monitor renal function in pediatric solid organ transplant recipients

2007· review· en· W2009265988 on OpenAlexaff
Guido Filler, Ajay P. Sharma

Bibliographic record

VenuePediatric Transplantation · 2007
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeonatal Health and Biochemistry
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRenal functionUrologyCystatin CMicroalbuminuriaCreatinineTransplantationGold standard (test)Internal medicineIntensive care medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim is to review the tools for early detection of renal dysfunction after pediatric solid organ transplantation. Currently, the most widely used marker for detection of renal dysfunction involves measurement of GFR. Inulin clearance forms the "gold standard" method for measuring GFR; however, nuclear medicine methods ((51)Cr EDTA and (99)Tc DTPA isotope clearance studies) have replaced inulin clearance. The measurement of serum creatinine has a low sensitivity for the early detection of renal damage. The Schwartz formula using patient height and serum creatinine requires center-specific constants and has limitations associated with creatinine determination. These limitations may be overcome using a cystatin C-based GFR estimation. In diabetic nephropathy, and more recently in hemolytic uremic syndrome, microalbuminuria has been established as a useful screening tool for renal damage, while its predictive value in the transplantation setting needs to be established. All transplant recipients should be screened for hypertension. Early referral for ambulatory 24-h blood pressure monitoring and involvement of pediatric nephrologists should be considered. All pediatric solid organ transplant recipients receiving CNI should be screened regularly for high blood pressure and early evidence of renal damage using either GFR scans or cystatin C-based GFR estimations.

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)0.002
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.303 · 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

Citations47
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePediatric TransplantationSame topicNeonatal Health and BiochemistryFrench-language works237,207