MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Glutathione and riboflavin status in patients undergoing home nocturnal hemodialysis versus standard hemodialysis

2009· article· en· W2290161557 on OpenAlexafffundabout
JA Kanampuza, Sarah Donnelly, Philip A. McFarlane, Christopher T. Chan, James D. House, P. Pencharz, PB Darling

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMetabolism and Genetic Disorders
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of ManitobaUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
FundersKidney Foundation of Canada
KeywordsHemodialysisGlutathioneRiboflavinMedicineInternal medicineHomocysteinePercentileGlutathione reductaseEndocrinologyVitaminChemistryBiochemistryEnzymeGlutathione peroxidase

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objectives To examine whether improved plasma cysteine (tCys) clearance in patients receiving home nocturnal hemodialysis (HNHD) (7 hrs/session, 6 nights/wk), influenced their erythrocyte (RBC) glutathione (GSH) concentration and riboflavin status, compared to patients on standard hemodialysis (SHD) (4 hrs/session, 3 d/wk). Methods We measured RBC GSH concentration by liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry & riboflavin status by RBC GSH reductase activity coefficient (EGRAC) in 15 HNHD, 15 SHD & 15 healthy controls (HC) participants. Estimated dietary protein intake (PRO), and plasma tCys, homocysteine (tHcy), C‐reactive protein (CRP) and vitamin C were also determined. Median (25th, 75th percentile) Conclusion RBC GSH and riboflavin status may be unaffected by hemodialysis modality in well nourished HD patients. Supported by Kidney Foundation of Canada

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB Journal→Same topicMetabolism and Genetic Disorders→French-language works237,207→