MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2162161746 · doi:10.1681/asn.2008111197

Yin and Yang

2009· letter· id· W2162161746 on OpenAlexaff
Amit X. Garg, Chirag R. Parikh

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Society of Nephrology · 2009
Typeletter
Languageid
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Kidney Injury Research
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney DiseasesNational Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute
KeywordsMedicineAcute kidney injuryKidney diseaseIntensive care medicinePsychological interventionNatural historyRenal functionIntervention (counseling)DiseaseInternal medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) have high rates of acute kidney injury (AKI). In the other direction, some AKI does not resolve and a hospitalized patient may be left with CKD. However, most of the time an AKI episode is self-limited, and kidney function returns to a level that predated the acute injury. Two questions then surround the natural history of this latter type of AKI when a patient is discharged from the hospital: Did the AKI identify a group of patients who failed a “stress test,” patients predestined to have high rates of mortality and morbidity including CKD? Did the injury damage the kidney in such a way that there will be a faster rate of decline toward advanced CKD? Both questions are important for clinical care. The former question guides patient counseling and follow-up and emphasizes the outpatient testing and use of interventions proven to prevent CKD. The latter question also emphasizes the importance of preventing AKI and has particular implications for any intervention that prevents AKI at a high cost or with a possible risk of toxicity. In the current issue of JASN, Ishani and …

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)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.106

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0050.015
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0320.014

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.297 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations11
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Society of NephrologySame topicAcute Kidney Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207