Biomarkers in kidney and heart disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is much symptomatic similarity between acute kidney disease and acute heart disease. Both may present with shortness of breath and chest discomfort, and thus it is not surprising that biomarkers of acute myocardial and renal disease often coexist in many physicians' diagnostic work-up schedules. In this review we explore the similarities and differences between current and future tests of myocardial and renal injury and function, with particular emphasis on the diagnostic utility of currently available biomarkers to assist with the diagnosis of cardiorenal syndromes. Imaging studies have not traditionally been viewed as clinical biomarkers, but as tests of structure and function; they contribute to the diagnostic process, and we believe that they should be considered alongside more traditional biomarkers such as blood and urine measurements of circulating proteins and metabolites. We discuss the place of natriuretic peptides, novel tests of kidney damage as well as kidney function and conclude with a discussion of their place in guiding future research studies whose goals must include better characterization of the degree of dysfunction imposed on one organ system by failure of the other.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".