MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Which issues should trials address in hemodialysis?

2007· article· en· W2126787392 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
David C. Wheeler

Bibliographic record

VenueHemodialysis International · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDialysis and Renal Disease Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHemodialysisIntensive care medicinePsychological interventionExpert opinionClinical trialRandomized controlled trialEnthusiasmNephrologyInternal medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The number of published randomized controlled trials in nephrology is fewer than in most other specialties in internal medicine. As a consequence, current clinical practice guidelines are based largely on expert opinion, which may prove to be incorrect. Enthusiasm for trials involving hemodialysis patients has been dampened by a series of high profile studies in which a range of different interventions have failed to improve outcomes. Despite these disappointments, recent experience suggests that nephrologists remain willing to participate in clinical studies that address important questions. Previous, ongoing and future trials involving hemodialysis patients are discussed.

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)0.551
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.749
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.551
Threshold uncertainty score0.554

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.5510.749
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0140.008
Bibliometrics0.0030.006
Science and technology studies0.0030.014
Scholarly communication0.0150.033
Open science0.0060.004
Research integrity0.0310.021
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.003

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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.310 · 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.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHemodialysis International→Same topicDialysis and Renal Disease Management→French-language works237,207→