MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2060338667 · doi:10.1177/0891988712436690

The Effects of Lithium on Renal Function in Older Adults—A Systematic Review

2012· review· en· W2060338667 on OpenAlexaff
Soham Rej, Nathan Herrmann, Kenneth I. Shulman

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geriatric Psychiatry and Neurology · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBipolar Disorder and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science CentreHealth Sciences CentreMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNephrogenic diabetes insipidusPolyuriaLithium (medication)MedicineUrine osmolalityRenal functionInternal medicineDiabetes insipidusAdverse effectIncidence (geometry)EndocrinologyDiureticDiuresisUrologyDiabetes mellitus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Chronic renal failure (CRF) and nephrogenic diabetes insipidus (NDI) are potential consequences of chronic lithium use, while acute renal failure (ARF) has been described in lithium intoxication. We performed a systematic review of all studies pertaining to the effects of lithium on the kidney in older adults. The ARF incidence was 1.5% per person-year and concurrent loop diuretic and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor use with lithium increased the risk. The CRF prevalence estimates varied from 1.2% to 34%, with risk factors including age, previous lithium intoxication, polyuria, previously impaired renal function, and decreased maximal urine osmolality. The prevalence of NDI varied widely from 1.8% to 85%. Risk factors included lithium duration, dose, level, slow-release formulation, and clinical nonresponse. Except for amiloride use in NDI, there is little evidence for treatment of other lithium-induced adverse renal effects. Currently, there is no compelling evidence to suggest that lithium should be avoided in elderly patients for fear of renal side effects.

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 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: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.144
Threshold uncertainty score0.577

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.261 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations81
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geriatric Psychiatry and NeurologySame topicBipolar Disorder and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207