MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Rethinking the peritoneal dialysis prescription: Results of recent studies (Review Article)

2006· review· en· W2049853097 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

VenueNephrology · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDialysis and Renal Disease Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePeritoneal dialysisDialysisHemodialysisMedical prescriptionIntensive care medicineUremic toxinsUrologyInternal medicinePharmacology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Peritoneal dialysis treats uraemia in a way different from hemodialysis. The continuous nature of peritoneal dialysis optimises the removal of uraemic toxins of larger molecular weight, the so-called 'middle molecules'. Initially, there was an appreciation of the efficacy of this kind of slow, continuous dialysis. However, with the growing emphasis on adequacy as defined by small solute kinetics, blood purification by peritoneal dialysis was considered to be inferior to that performed with hemodialysis. With the subsequent publication of studies showing a lack of correlation of small solute clearance parameters with outcome in peritoneal dialysis, attention is again being paid to the benefits of continuous dialysis that treats renal failure in a way not quantifiable by small solute kinetics.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.869
Threshold uncertainty score0.703

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.102
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.267 · 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