MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2012500508 · doi:10.1159/000067869

ADEMEX and HEMO Trials: Where Are We Going?

2003· article· en· W2012500508 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood Purification · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDialysis and Renal Disease Management
Canadian institutionsRoyal Victoria HospitalMcGill University Health CentreRoyal Victoria Regional Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPeritoneal dialysisMedicineDialysisClinical trialIntensive care medicineUrologyCreatinineRenal functionInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Doubt has remained as to whether or not the K/DOQI recommended targets for adequacy of dialysis for peritoneal dialysis patients is appropriate (weekly Kt/V 2 + creatinine clearance 50-60 l/1.73 m(2)). The ADEMEX trial can be interpreted as indicating that lower targets might be acceptable. The HEMO trial, not yet published but presented in April 2002, casts doubts on the advantages of achieving higher than recommended small solute clearance targets. Taken together, these trials require that we broaden our concept of adequacy. There is also a risk of complacency with respect to dialysis adequacy because of these trials and this would be unwise.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.571
Threshold uncertainty score0.282

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.254 · 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