MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Back to the Future: Middle Molecules, High Flux Membranes, and Optimal Dialysis

2003· article· en· W2111742701 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Raymond Vanholder, Griet Glorieux, Rita V. De Smet

Bibliographic record

VenueHemodialysis International · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDialysis and Renal Disease Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMembraneMalnutritionAnemiaHemodialysisUremiaDialysisInternal medicineChemistryBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Middle molecules can be defined as compounds with a molecular weight (MW) above 500 Da. An even broader definition includes those molecules that do not cross the membranes of standard low-flux dialyzers, not only because of molecular weight, but also because of protein binding and/or multicompartmental behavior. Recently, several of these middle molecules have been linked to the increased tendency of uremic patients to develop inflammation, malnutrition, and atheromatosis. Other toxic actions can also be attributed to the middle molecules. In the present publication we will consider whether improved removal of middle molecules by large pore membranes has an impact on clinical conditions related to the uremic syndrome. The clinical benefits of large pore membranes are reduction of uremia-related amyloidosis; maintenance of residual renal function; and reduction of inflammation, malnutrition, anemia, dyslipidemia, and mortality. It is concluded that middle molecules play a role in uremic toxicity and especially in the processes related to inflammation, atherogenesis, and malnutrition. Their removal seems to be related to a better outcome, although better biocompatibility of membranes might be a confounding factor.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.006
Scholarly communication0.0030.015
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0060.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.224 · 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

Citations22
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHemodialysis InternationalSame topicDialysis and Renal Disease ManagementFrench-language works237,207