MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2155943491 · doi:10.1586/14737167.2015.1012069

Cost-effective treatment modalities for reducing morbidity associated with chronic kidney disease

2015· review· en· W2155943491 on OpenAlexaff
Thomas W. Ferguson, Navdeep Tangri, Claudio Rigatto, Paul Komenda

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDialysis and Renal Disease Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaSeven Oaks General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineKidney diseaseIntensive care medicinePeritoneal dialysisNephrologyHemodialysisReferralDialysisQuality of life (healthcare)Kidney transplantationRenal replacement therapyInternal medicineTransplantationFamily medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a worldwide health problem with increasing prevalence and incidence. Guidelines suggest that early referral to a nephrologist to manage advanced stage (4+) patients with CKD is an effective treatment strategy, with earlier stage patients best managed through primary care physicians. Should patients with CKD progress to total kidney failure, several therapies are available that vary widely in costs. Kidney transplantation offers the lowest costs and highest quality of life, followed in ascending order of costs by peritoneal dialysis, home hemodialysis and facility-based hemodialysis. Earlier detection of CKD may prevent progression to kidney failure, and accurate risk prediction of end-stage kidney failure may improve clinical planning, outcomes and resource allocation.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.149
GPT teacher head0.558
Teacher spread0.409 · 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

Citations40
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes ResearchSame topicDialysis and Renal Disease ManagementFrench-language works237,207