Standards of Clinical Practice for Renal Pharmacists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patients with stage 1 to 5 CKD and those undergoing dialysis are at extremely high risk for drug therapy problems (DTPs). 2,3 In controlled trials involving general patient populations, clinical pharmacist interventions have reduced hospital admissions, length of hospital stay, readmis sions, and emergency department visits. 4-7 The activities of pharmacists most strongly associated with improved patient outcomes include participating on rounds, interviewing patients, performing medication reconciliation, counselling patients on discharge, and conducting postdischarge followup. 5 A systematic review of 8 controlled trials involving patients with CKD showed that clinical pharmacist interventions improved management of anemia, blood pressure, and lipids, as well as calcium and phosphate parameters. 8 In this patient population, clinical pharmacists’ interventions reduced hospital admissions, length of hospital stay, and incidence of end-stage renal disease or death. 8
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.062 | 0.261 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.061 | 0.046 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".