Is the Calcium Correct? Measuring Serum Calcium in Dialysis Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abnormalities in calcium concentration are frequent in patients receiving dialysis therapy. Most cases of both hypo- and hypercalcemia are mild and asymptomatic. There is concern, however, that, on the one hand, hypocalcemia can drive hyperparathyroidism and eventually lead to gland hypertrophy and autonomous function. Hypercalcemia, on the other hand, can be associated with increased extraosseous calcium and phosphate deposition leading to vascular calcification with an attendant mortality and morbidity. Calcium exists in three main forms in the blood: the physiologically active free or ionized fraction (terms often used interchangeably), a protein bound fraction, and a fraction complexed to other anions. Although the ionized calcium can readily be measured using ion-specific electrodes, it is the total calcium that is most commonly measured because of sample handling and cost concerns. As it is the free or ionized form that is biologically active (and therefore of most relevance), a number of adjustment formulae have been derived to "correct" the total calcium for changes in albumin, protein, and complexing ion concentrations. These formulae show good statistical correlation with measured ionized calcium in populations studied as a whole, but are generally poor predictors of true ionized hypo- or hypercalcemia in individual patients. International guideline committees in nephrology recommend frequent assessment of calcium levels in dialysis patients and recommend that these levels be kept within the normal reference range. These guidelines are less clear on which measurement of calcium should be used to guide clinical decision making. This review examines the merits of making any adjustment to the total calcium measurement, and suggests when it is appropriate to measure the ionized or free calcium.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".