MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2093954600 · doi:10.1053/j.ajkd.2014.10.013

Canadian Society of Nephrology Commentary on the KDIGO Clinical Practice Guideline for CKD Evaluation and Management

2014· review· en· W2093954600 on OpenAlexaffabout
Ayub Akbari, Catherine M. Clase, Phil Acott, Marisa Battistella, Aminu K. Bello, Patrick Feltmate, Allan Grill, Meena Karsanji, Paul Komenda, François Madore, Braden Manns, S. Sara Mahdavi, Reem A. Mustafa, Andrew Smyth, E. Sohani Welcher

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Kidney Diseases · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Kidney Disease and Diabetes
Canadian institutionsPopulation Health Research InstituteUniversity of CalgaryUniversité de MontréalThe Scarborough HospitalSeven Oaks General HospitalVancouver Coastal HealthSunnybrook Health Science CentreMcMaster UniversityOntario Stroke NetworkCapital District Health AuthorityUniversity Health NetworkHealth Sciences CentreUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of TorontoDalhousie UniversityMarkham Stouffville HospitalUniversity of ManitobaSt. Joseph’s Healthcare HamiltonUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGuidelineNephrologyClinical PracticeIntensive care medicineInternal medicineFamily medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We congratulate the KDIGO (Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes) work group on their comprehensive work in a broad subject area and agreed with many of the recommendations in their clinical practice guideline on the evaluation and management of chronic kidney disease. We concur with the KDIGO definitions and classification of kidney disease and welcome the addition of albuminuria categories at all levels of glomerular filtration rate (GFR), the terminology of G categories rather than stages to describe level of GFR, the division of former stage 3 into new G categories 3a and 3b, and the addition of the underlying diagnosis. We agree with the use of the heat map to illustrate the relative contributions of low GFR and albuminuria to cardiovascular and renal risk, though we thought that the highest risk category was too broad, including as it does people at disparate levels of risk. We add an albuminuria category A4 for nephrotic-range proteinuria and D and T categories for patients on dialysis or with a functioning renal transplant. We recommend target blood pressure of 140/90mm Hg regardless of diabetes or proteinuria, and against the combination of angiotensin receptor blockers with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors. We recommend against routine protein restriction. We concur on individualization of hemoglobin A1c targets. We do not agree with routine restriction of sodium intake to <2g/d, instead suggesting reduction of sodium intake in those with high intake (>3.3g/d). We suggest screening for anemia only when GFR is <30mL/min/1.73m(2). We recognize the absence of evidence on appropriate phosphate targets and methods of achieving them and do not agree with suggestions in this area. In drug dosing, we agree with the recommendation of using absolute clearance (ie, milliliters per minute), calculated from the patient's estimated GFR (which is normalized to 1.73m(2)) and the patient's actual anthropomorphic body surface area. We agree with referral to a nephrologist when GFR is <30mL/min/1.73m(2) (and for many other scenarios), but suggest urine albumin-creatinine ratio > 60mg/mmol or proteinuria with protein excretion > 1g/d as the referral threshold for proteinuria.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.040
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.985
Threshold uncertainty score0.387

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.040
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.004
Bibliometrics0.0050.007
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0150.020
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.003

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.423
Teacher spread0.381 · 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
GenreCommentary

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

Citations120
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Kidney DiseasesSame topicChronic Kidney Disease and DiabetesFrench-language works237,207