MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Acid‐base balance of cats with chronic renal failure: effect of deterioration in renal function

2003· article· en· W2037207742 on OpenAlexaff
Jonathan Elliott, Harriet M. Syme, P. J. Markwell

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Small Animal Practice · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRenal function and acid-base balance
Canadian institutionsRoyal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMetabolic acidosisRenal functionCATSCreatinineAcidosisInternal medicineEndocrinologyChronic renal failure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In a previous cross-sectional study of feline chronic renal failure (CRF), metabolic acidosis was identified in 52.6 per cent of animals with severe renal failure (plasma creatinine concentration >400 micromol/litre). The aim of this longitudinal study was to determine whether metabolic acidosis preceded or accompanied a deterioration in renal function in cats with CRF. Data were analysed from 55 cats with CRF that had been followed longitudinally for at least four months. Twenty-one cases showed deterioration in renal function over the period of the study, as evidenced by significant rises in their plasma creatinine concentrations and decreases in bodyweight. In five of the 21 cases, acidaemia accompanied the deterioration in renal function. Only one of these cats had evidence of metabolic acidosis before renal function deterioration. One other case developed metabolic acidosis without a rise in plasma creatinine concentration. These data suggest that biochemical evidence of metabolic acidosis does not generally occur until late in the course of feline CRF.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.249 · 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

Citations41
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Small Animal PracticeSame topicRenal function and acid-base balanceFrench-language works237,207