Canadian Society of Nephrology Guidelines/Recommendations on Peritoneal Dialysis Adequacy 2011—Response to Comments by Liakopoulos <i>et al.</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
transport status is no longer associated with poor clinical outcome.In this context, early identification of patients who develop characteristics of high peritoneal transport is crucial for implementation of the optimal PD regimen (6).The recommendation in the guidelines from the Japanese Society for Dialysis Therapy (7), in the guidelines for dialysis adequacy from CARI (Caring for Australians with Renal Impairment) (8), and in the Clinical Practice Guidelines for Peritoneal Dialysis from the UK Renal Association (9) for routine monitoring of membrane transport status every 6 -12 months has been adopted by many PD units around the world, including ours.Routine performance of a PET does not substantially increase staff workload and is, in our opinion, a reliable, useful, and necessary tool for monitoring our patients and improving their management.
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 | 0.013 | 0.068 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.021 | 0.028 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.010 |
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".