MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2089399887 · doi:10.1159/000183976

Digoxin-Like Immunoreactive Substance in Renal Failure: A Reappraisal

2008· article· en· W2089399887 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

Venue˜The œNephron journals/Nephron journals · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPotassium and Related Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDigoxinRadioimmunoassayMedicineImmunoassayInternal medicineFluorescence polarization immunoassayCreatinineEndocrinologyImmunologyAntibodyHeart failure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A digoxin-like immunoreactive substance (DLIS) has been described in the sera of patients with renal impairment. To further investigate this problem, we measured digoxin in 50 patients with elevated serum creatinine using 4 commercial digoxin immunoassay kits (3 radioimmunoassay methods and 1 fluorescence polarization immunoassay technique). Ten of the patients were receiving digoxin therapeutically, while the remainder were not receiving the drug. Two of the radioimmunoassay kits detected low amounts of DLIS in 23% of the subjects not receiving digoxin, the highest level being 0.5 nmol/l. No DLIS was detected by the other radioimmunoassay kit or by the fluorescence polarization technique. The majority of renal patients receiving digoxin had similar results by all 4 methods, although 2 patients differed by 0.6 nmol/l as measured by 2 of the radioimmunoassay kits. We conclude that the extent of interference by DLIS in digoxin immunoassays in patients with renal impairment is not as great as has been previously reported.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.451
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.262 · 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