RE: IS BENIGN PROSTATIC HYPERPLASIA A RISK FACTOR FOR CHRONIC RENAL FAILURE?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
No AccessJournal of UrologyLetters to the Editor/Errata1 Dec 2005RE: IS BENIGN PROSTATIC HYPERPLASIA A RISK FACTOR FOR CHRONIC RENAL FAILURE? Amrith Raj Rao, Roger O. Plail, Hanif G. Motiwala, and Omer M.A. Karim Amrith Raj RaoAmrith Raj Rao More articles by this author , Roger O. PlailRoger O. Plail More articles by this author , Hanif G. MotiwalaHanif G. Motiwala More articles by this author , and Omer M.A. KarimOmer M.A. Karim More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/01.ju.0000180647.35056.b4AboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail "RE: IS BENIGN PROSTATIC HYPERPLASIA A RISK FACTOR FOR CHRONIC RENAL FAILURE?." The Journal of Urology, 174(6), pp. 2427–2428 References 1 : Glomerular filtration rate measurement: a neglected test in urological practice. Br J Urol1995; 75: 296. Google Scholar 2 : Biological variation of cystatin C: implications for the assessment of glomerular filtration rate. Clin Chem1998; 44: 1535. Google Scholar 3 : Serum creatinine is an inadequate screening test for renal failure in elderly patients. Arch Intern Med2003; 163: 356. Google Scholar 4 : Referral for dialysis in Ontario. Arch Intern Med1995; 155: 2473. Google Scholar 5 : Late referral for end-stage renal disease: a region-wide survey in the south west of England. Nephrol Dial Transplant2002; 17: 1252. Google Scholar 6 : Outcome of renal replacement therapy in the very elderly. Nephrol Dial Transplant2001; 16: 128. Google Scholar 7 : The medical and economical advantages of early referral of chronic renal failure to renal specialists. Nephrol Dial Transplant1998; 13: 246. Google Scholar 8 : Consequences of late referral on patient outcomes. Nephrol Dial Transplant2000; 15: 8. Google Scholar 9 : Cystatin C—properties and use as diagnostic marker. Adv Clin Chem2000; 35: 63. Google Scholar 10 : Serum cystatin C measured by automated immunoassay: a more sensitive marker of changes in GFR than serum creatinine. Kidney Int1995; 47: 312. Google Scholar 11 : A comparison between cystatin C, plasma creatinine and Cockroft-Gault formula for the estimation of glomerular filtration rate. Nephrol Dial Transplant2003; 18: 2024. Google Scholar 12 : Serum cystatin C is superior to serum creatinine as a marker of kidney function: a meta-analysis. Am J Kidney Dis2002; 40: 221. Google Scholar 13 : Measuring glomerular filtration rate using cystatin C and β-trace protein in children with spina bifida. J Urol2003; 169: 2312. Abstract, Google Scholar Conquest Hospital, The Ridge, St. Leonards-on-Sea, East Sussex TN37 7RD, United Kingdom© 2005 by American Urological Association, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 174Issue 6December 2005Page: 2427-2428 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2005 by American Urological Association, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Amrith Raj Rao More articles by this author Roger O. Plail More articles by this author Hanif G. Motiwala More articles by this author Omer M.A. Karim More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF DownloadLoading ...
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.065 | 0.035 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".