Dialysis or Transplantation for End-Stage Renal Disease in Adults? An Evidence-based Answer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Evidence Based Medicine is a new approach looking for implementation in the academic teaching of Internal Medicine. Objective: to include this subject in our post-graduate medical school, in the curriculum and as a research project. Methods: since 2000, each year one of the post-graduate nephrology fellows starts a Cochrane revision with the tutorial help of Nephrologists and Methodologists. Results: two titles were accepted for inclusion within the Cochrane Library (“Haemodialysis frequency for end stage renal disease” and “Home versus in-centre haemodialysis for end stage renal disease”) and one protocol will be published in the 4th issue 2002. The main methodological and clinical point of the accepted protocol are: – explanation, in the background section, of the state of the art and of the reasons why to perform a systematic review in this field; – explicitation of criteria for including studies (study design, type of participants, type of interventions, outcome measures) and for assessing methodological quality of the studies; – elaboration of a sensible and reproducible search strategy aimed to identified any relevant article (even not published) seeking electronic bibliographic databanks (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CIHNAL), patients’ websites and ESRD registries (www.renalnet.com, www.kidney.org); – identification of any sources of heterogeneity between studies; – elaboration of statistical analysis using a specific and validated program (Rev.Man) tailored for testing for heterogeneity and for combining data related to the identified studies in a metanalysis when appropriate. Conclusion: the direct involvement of the post-graduate Nephrology school in the systematic reviews is a precious didactic tool.
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 | 0.017 | 0.094 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".