MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2141685272 · doi:10.1093/ndt/gfr033

Urinary NGAL levels before and after coronary angiography: a complex story

2011· article· en· W2141685272 on OpenAlexaff
Carolina Weber, Michael Bennett, Lee Er, M. Bennett, Adeera Levin

Bibliographic record

VenueNephrology Dialysis Transplantation · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Kidney Injury Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCreatinineLipocalinCohortUrinary systemCohort studyInternal medicineAngiographyExcretionUrologyCardiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: We describe urinary neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin (uNGAL) values in association with clinical characteristics and urinary parameters in adults undergoing coronary angiography. METHODS: This is an observational study of consecutive patients who underwent elective coronary angiography during a 4-month period in a large urban tertiary care hospital. RESULTS: One hundred and thirteen patients were enrolled, and 100 had sufficient data to be included in the analyses. A large range of preprocedural uNGAL levels were observed (range 1-269 ng/mg Cr). Median preprocedural uNGAL was 8 ng/mg Cr. Age (P = 0.009), serum creatinine (P = 0.077) and albumin excretion (P = 0.009) were significant predictors of baseline uNGAL. Half the cohort demonstrated an increase and half a decrease in the absolute values of uNGAL after angiography, irrespective of preprocedural levels. CONCLUSIONS: We observed variable, but relatively low absolute levels of uNGAL prior to angiography in this 'cardiac' cohort. Only age, serum creatinine and albumin excretion could explain some of this variability. When designing studies of at-risk individuals where uNGAL may be used as a marker for acute kidney injury, this variability should be taken into account.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations6
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNephrology Dialysis TransplantationSame topicAcute Kidney Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207