MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2024142533 · doi:10.1093/qjmed/hci092

Hyperhomocysteinaemia and aortic calcification are associated with fractures in patients on haemodialysis

2005· article· en· W2024142533 on OpenAlexafffund
S. A. Jamal, Richard E. Leiter, Douglas C. Bauer

Bibliographic record

VenueQJM · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicParathyroid Disorders and Treatments
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's Hospital
FundersUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsMedicineHomocysteineCalcificationHyperhomocysteinemiaHemodialysisInternal medicineRadiographyCardiologyLumbarSurgeryRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Fractures and atherosclerosis are common in patients with renal failure; this may be due to hyperhomocysteinemia. AIM: To examine the relationships between fractures, vascular calcification and homocysteine levels in haemodialysis patients. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. METHODS: We enrolled 37 men and 15 women who had been on haemodialysis for at least 1 year. We identified prevalent spine fractures by radiographs. Non-spine fractures were identified by self-report and confirmed by review of radiographs or radiology reports. We classified the presence and severity of lumbar aortic calcifications with lateral lumbar radiographs. We measured serum homocysteine in all subjects within 30 days of study entry. RESULTS: After adjusting for age and weight, increased levels of homocysteine were associated with an increased risk fracture (OR per mmol/l increase in homocysteine 1.6, 95%CI 1.2-2.0), as was the presence of aortic calcification (OR 1.6, 95%CI 1.2-2.1). Homocysteine and lumbar aortic calcification were highly correlated (r = 0.86). DISCUSSION: Hyperhomocysteinaemia may explain the relationship between fractures and atherosclerosis in patients with renal failure.

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)0.004
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.250 · 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

Citations21
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQJMSame topicParathyroid Disorders and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207