MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2072313110 · doi:10.5867/medwave.2015.03.6122

¿Debe indicarse acetilcisteína para prevenir la nefropatía por contraste?

2015· review· es· W2072313110 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

VenueMedwave · 2015
Typereview
Languagees
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Kidney Injury Research
Canadian institutionsCochrane
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHumanitiesPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Diagnostic and therapeutic procedures that require the infusion of iodine containing contrast solutions are associated with the risk of contrast-induced nephropathy, a condition that can cause significant morbidity. Acetylcysteine has been proposed as a measure to prevent this condition. Searching in Epistemonikos database, which is maintained by screening 30 databases, we identified 20 systematic reviews including 64 randomized trials. We combined the evidence using meta-analysis and generated a summary of findings table following the GRADE approach. We concluded that even though acetylcysteine might not cause important adverse effects, it does not decrease need for dialysis, mortality or other important outcomes.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.652
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.010

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 head0.108
GPT teacher head0.423
Teacher spread0.315 · 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