Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the past 37 year the role of plasma exchange in the treatment of patients with renal disease has undergone several changes. The majority of the changes for the use of plasma exchange relied on randomized control trials and delineations of mechanisms that potentially would benefit from the use of plasma exchange. Over the past 11 years plasma exchange indications for renal disease, the absolute numbers have been relatively unchanged but the indications are quite different. The Canadian Apheresis Group indicated in 2010 that TTP/HUS is still the number 1 indication at 63% of the total plasma exchange activity for renal disease but P and C ANCA Vasculitis had risen to 14% followed by renal transplant at 10%, Goodpasture's Syndrome at 6% and transplant FSGS at 5% with Cryoglobulinemia 2% and Myeloma Nephropathy had dropped dramatically to less than 1% with no cases of SLE reported. This report describes the most common indications for plasma exchange in patient's with renal disease and the evidence that supports it's use in 2011.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".