MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2063788185 · doi:10.1359/jbmr.071029

Renal Function and Bisphosphonate Safety

2007· article· en· W2063788185 on OpenAlexaff
Sophie A. Jamal, Douglas C. Bauer, Kristine E. Ensrud, Marc C. Hochberg, Areef Ishani, Jane A. Cauley, Steven R. Cummings

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Bone and Mineral Research · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone health and treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRenal functionMedicineCreatinineUrologyCategorizationKidney diseaseKidneyLean body massIntervention (counseling)Internal medicineBody weightComputer scienceNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We thank Dr Ott and colleagues for their letter concerning our recently published paper “Alendronate Treatment in Women with Normal to Severely Impaired Renal Function: An Analysis of the Fracture Intervention Trial”(1). Dr Ott and colleagues note that that we have misinterpreted the Kidney Diseases Outcome Quality Initiative (K/DOQI) classification(2); according to the K/DOQI classification, an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of <30 ml/min is defined as “severe,” and in our manuscript we refer to an eGFR of <45 ml/min as severe. We recognize that using the same descriptive terms as in the KDOQI classification may be problematic. We attempted to avoid misinterpretation by clearly stating that we categorized creatinine clearance (CrCL) based on a modified Kidney Foundation classification (used in other manuscripts by our group(3)) and explicitly defined the eGFR we used: severe, <45 ml/min; moderately reduced, 45–59 ml/min; normal >60 ml/min. We chose to categorize CrCL in this manner because, as pointed out by Dr Ott and colleagues, very few women participating in the Fracture Intervention Trial had an eGFR of <30 ml/min.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.053
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.053
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.337 · 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

Citations1
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Bone and Mineral Research→Same topicBone health and treatments→French-language works237,207→