MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2316799989 · doi:10.1097/mnh.0000000000000119

Pregnancy in advanced chronic kidney disease and end-stage renal disease

2015· review· en· W2316799989 on OpenAlexaff
Ahd Alkhunaizi, Nir Melamed, Michelle Hladunewich

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Nephrology & Hypertension · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPregnancy and Medication Impact
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineNephrologyIntensive care medicineDialysisPregnancyKidney diseaseRenal replacement therapyEnd stage renal diseaseKidney transplantationDiseaseTransplantationInternal medicineFetus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This article reviews the available literature about the incidence, outcomes, and the management of pregnancy in women with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD) and end-stage renal disease (ESRD) who require renal replacement therapy. RECENT FINDINGS: Pregnancy in women with advanced CKD and ESRD can result in serious adverse maternal and fetal outcomes, but improved outcomes have been noted in recent years, likely secondary to intensified dialysis regimens. More intensive dialysis allows for the gentle removal of water, solutes, and uremic toxins, which theoretically results in near-normal maternal renal physiology, an improvement in placental blood flow, and therefore a better environment for fetal growth and development. As management remains complex, a close joint collaboration between the high-risk obstetrical team and nephrology is essential. SUMMARY: Pregnancy on dialysis is becoming a viable option for women with advanced CKD and ESRD who do not have immediate access to transplantation.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
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)0.0030.001

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 head0.104
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.289 · 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

Citations96
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in Nephrology & HypertensionSame topicPregnancy and Medication ImpactFrench-language works237,207