MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2155250786 · doi:10.1001/jama.295.23.2765

Prophylaxis Strategies for Contrast-Induced Nephropathy

2006· review· en· W2155250786 on OpenAlexafffund
Neesh Pannu, Natasha Wiebe, Marcello Tonelli, for the Alberta Kidney Disease Network

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Kidney Injury Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaAlberta Kidney Disease Network
FundersUniversity of Alberta
KeywordsMedicineNephropathyContrast-induced nephropathyKidney diseaseInternal medicineDialysisAcute kidney injuryHeart failureIntensive care medicineDiabetes mellitusUrologyEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CONTEXT: Contrast-induced nephropathy is associated with significant economic and clinical consequences, including prolonged hospitalization, the requirement for dialysis, and an increased risk of death. OBJECTIVES: To summarize the current state of evidence for prophylaxis of contrast-induced nephropathy, provide evidence-based recommendations regarding management of high-risk patients undergoing angiographic procedures, and identify new avenues for research. DATA SOURCES: Systematic searches of peer-reviewed publications were performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane database from 1966 to January 2006. Search terms included radio contrast nephropathy, contrast media, acetylcysteine, theophylline, sodium bicarbonate, HMG Co-A reductase inhibitors, ascorbic acid, kidney diseases, renal insufficiency, kidney failure, nephropathy, fenoldopam, diuretics, and saline or half saline. STUDY SELECTION: Observational studies of risk factors and randomized controlled trials of prophylaxis strategies for contrast-induced nephropathy that specified a definition of contrast-induced nephropathy or postprocedure creatinine level as an outcome measure. Evidence Synthesis Important patient-related risk factors for contrast-induced nephropathy include chronic kidney disease, diabetes mellitus, heart failure, older age, anemia, and left ventricular systolic dysfunction. Non-patient-related risk factors include high-osmolar contrast, ionic contrast, contrast viscosity, and contrast volume. Practice guidelines recommend obtaining preprocedural serum creatinine levels among patients with renal disease, diabetes, proteinuria, hypertension, gout, or congestive heart failure. Available evidence, largely based on small- to medium-sized trials, supports the use of hydration, bicarbonate, and low volumes of iso- or low-osmolar contrast in patients at risk. N-acetylcysteine or ascorbic acid may be of value in very high-risk patients. CONCLUSIONS: While several risk factors for contrast-induced nephropathy have been identified, the development of an effective prophylaxis strategy for contrast-induced nephropathy has been limited by our poor understanding of the pathophysiology and the clinical significance of this condition. Future research should focus on correctly identifying higher-risk patients and testing therapies in the setting of large well-powered clinical trials.

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)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.086
GPT teacher head0.403
Teacher spread0.317 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations413
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAMASame topicAcute Kidney Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207