MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Stent Placement in Patients With Atherosclerotic Renal Artery Stenosis and Impaired Renal Function

2009· article· en· W2115855000 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Internal Medicine · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRenal and Vascular Pathologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta Hospital
FundersUniversitair Medisch Centrum GroningenErasmus Medisch CentrumUniversity of Alberta
KeywordsMedicineStentRenal functionClinical endpointCreatinineDialysisInternal medicineMyocardial infarctionRandomized controlled trialRenal artery stenosisSurgeryIntravascular ultrasoundRandomizationStenosisHazard ratioKidney diseaseRenal arteryCardiologyKidneyConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the efficacy and safety of renal artery stenting in patients with atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis (ARAS) and impaired renal function. OBJECTIVE: To determine the efficacy and safety of stent placement in patients with ARAS and impaired renal function. DESIGN: Randomized clinical trial. Randomization was centralized and computer generated, and allocation was assigned by e-mail. Patients, providers, and persons who assessed outcomes were not blinded to treatment assignment. SETTING: 10 European medical centers. PARTICIPANTS: 140 patients with creatinine clearance less than 80 mL/min per 1.73 m(2) and ARAS of 50% or greater. INTERVENTION: Stent placement and medical treatment (64 patients) or medical treatment only (76 patients). Medical treatment consisted of antihypertensive treatment, a statin, and aspirin. MEASUREMENTS: The primary end point was a 20% or greater decrease in creatinine clearance. Secondary end points included safety and cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. RESULTS: Forty-six of 64 patients assigned to stent placement had the procedure. Ten of the 64 patients (16%) in the stent placement group and 16 patients (22%) in the medication group reached the primary end point (hazard ratio, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.33 to 1.61]). Serious complications occurred in the stent group, including 2 procedure-related deaths (3%), 1 late death secondary to an infected hematoma, and 1 patient who required dialysis secondary to cholesterol embolism. The groups did not differ for other secondary end points. LIMITATION: Many patients were falsely identified as having renal artery stenosis greater than 50% by noninvasive imaging and did not ultimately require stenting. CONCLUSION: Stent placement with medical treatment had no clear effect on progression of impaired renal function but led to a small number of significant procedure-related complications. The study findings favor a conservative approach to patients with ARAS, focused on cardiovascular risk factor management and avoiding stenting.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.091
Threshold uncertainty score0.419

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.241 · 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