MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2016955406 · doi:10.1080/10641950801986720

A Comparison of Prediction Equations for Estimating Glomerular Filtration Rate in Pregnancy

2009· article· en· W2016955406 on OpenAlexaff
Sofia B. Ahmed, Rhonda Bentley–Lewis, Norman K. Hollenberg, Steven W. Graves, Ellen W. Seely

Bibliographic record

VenueHypertension in Pregnancy · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Kidney Disease and Diabetes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryFoothills Medical Centre
FundersNational Institute on Minority Health and Health DisparitiesNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteDeutsches KrebsforschungszentrumNational Institute on AgingNational Center for Research ResourcesU.S. Public Health Service
KeywordsRenal functionMedicineInulinUrologyGold standard (test)PregnancyCreatinineEndocrinologyInternal medicineChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To compare existing glomerular filtration rate (GFR) prediction equations with the gold standard, inulin clearance, in pregnancy. METHODS: Five equations were assessed for precision, bias, and accuracy in prediction of true GFR, measured by inulin clearance in 12 healthy, pregnant women during the second (T2) and third (T3) trimesters and in postpartum (PP). RESULTS: Precision was greatest with 24-hour creatinine clearance estimation of GFR (R(2) = 13% (T2), R(2) = 26% (T3)). Other than 100/SCr, all equations underestimated true GFR. 30% accuracy was greatest in 100/SCr (83% (T2), 92% (T3)). CONCLUSIONS: Current GFR prediction formulae do not appear to be sufficient for estimating GFR in the gravid state.

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)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.068
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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.084

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.068
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.276 · 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

Citations45
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHypertension in PregnancySame topicChronic Kidney Disease and DiabetesFrench-language works237,207