MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2162543458 · doi:10.2215/cjn.01310211

Posttransplantation Proteinuria

2011· review· en· W2162543458 on OpenAlexafffund
M. Khaled Shamseddin, Greg Knoll

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRenal Transplantation Outcomes and Treatments
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineProteinuriaUrologyTransplantationGlomerulopathyInternal medicineRenal biopsyKidney transplantationGastroenterologyBiopsyKidney

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Proteinuria is a common problem encountered in the treatment of renal transplant recipients, occurring in up to 45% of patients. Proteinuria from native kidneys falls rapidly after renal transplantation, and persistent or worsening proteinuria is usually indicative of allograft pathology. Biopsy studies of transplant patients with proteinuria have confirmed that transplant-specific diagnoses (transplant glomerulopathy, interstitial fibrosis and tubular atrophy, and acute rejection) are more commonly found than other proteinuric conditions, such as glomerulonephritis. As in the nontransplant setting, proteinuria is associated with worse clinical outcomes, including an increased risk for death, cardiovascular events, and graft loss. Blockade of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers will reduce proteinuria, but the long-term effect of these medications on patient and graft survival remains unknown.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.146
GPT teacher head0.448
Teacher spread0.302 · 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
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

Citations68
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Journal of the American Society of NephrologySame topicRenal Transplantation Outcomes and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207