MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2084606456 · doi:10.1097/mcc.0b013e32833e8412

Cystatin C in acute kidney injury

2010· review· en· W2084606456 on OpenAlexaff
Sean M. Bagshaw, Rinaldo Bellomo

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Critical Care · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Kidney Disease and Diabetes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCystatin CMedicineRenal functionCreatinineAcute kidney injuryCystatinBiomarkerInternal medicineUrologyIntensive care medicineGastroenterology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This review will summarize and discuss the role of cystatin C in the diagnosis of acute kidney injury. RECENT FINDINGS: Cystatin C is easily measured and has the characteristics of an ideal marker of kidney function. Data suggest that cystatin C is modified by age, sex, muscle mass, obesity, smoking status, thyroid function, inflammation, and malignancy. These factors suggest the need for age-specific and sex-specific reference standards. Cystatin C-based glomerular filtration rate estimates may perform better than creatinine in selected patient populations (elderly, children, transplantation, cirrhosis, malnourished). Cystatin C has been evaluated for the early diagnosis of acute kidney injury (AKI) in several populations. Serum cystatin C has value for the diagnosis of acute kidney injury; however, it has often performed similarly to creatinine. Urinary cystatin C has potential as an early marker. SUMMARY: Cystatin C is an accurate biomarker for the early detection of AKI, and may, in selected populations, be superior to creatinine; however, data have been inconsistent. It also has reasonable discrimination for important outcomes such as death and renal replacement therapy (RRT). Additional studies are needed that focus on the cost-effectiveness of earlier detection of AKI with cystatin C compared with creatinine, and whether these biomarkers have complementary value.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.003

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 head0.142
GPT teacher head0.506
Teacher spread0.364 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations105
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in Critical CareSame topicChronic Kidney Disease and DiabetesFrench-language works237,207