MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Indigenous health: update on the impact of diabetes and chronic kidney disease

2006· review· en· W2315350332 on OpenAlexaffabout
Karen Yeates, Marcello Tonelli

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Nephrology & Hypertension · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Health EconomicsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiabetes mellitusKidney diseaseIndigenousDiseaseMedicineChronic diseaseEnvironmental healthIntensive care medicineBiologyInternal medicineEndocrinologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: With respect to chronic diseases such as diabetes and its complications, indigenous populations are known to suffer from poor health outcomes in comparison with whites. The purpose of this review is to highlight recent epidemiologic and intervention studies that have occurred in the areas of diabetes and renal disease among indigenous populations. RECENT FINDINGS: The burden of diabetes is increasing among younger indigenous groups with epidemic levels of end-stage kidney disease. As dialysis therapy has contributed to prolong life among indigenous patients, cardiovascular disease has now become the leading cause of mortality in these populations. Clear preventive intervention strategies to improve rates of progression to end-stage kidney disease are not prevalent nor are they emerging over time. Access to kidney transplantation is also reduced among indigenous populations in Australia, New Zealand, the USA and Canada. Reasons for this disparity are unclear but likely multifactorial. SUMMARY: Diabetes and its complications have produced a health crisis among indigenous populations. The impact on healthcare systems in countries where these indigenous populations reside will be substantial unless significant efforts are made to improve diabetic renal disease outcomes in the near future.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.389
Teacher spread0.322 · 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 designSystematic review
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

Citations26
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in Nephrology & HypertensionSame topicIndigenous Health, Education, and RightsFrench-language works237,207