MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2340344334 · doi:10.1093/joneph/20.6.632

Challenges for randomized controlled trials in nephrology: illustrations in vascular access science and care

2007· article· en· W2340344334 on OpenAlexaff
Charmaine E. Lok, Louise Moist

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Nephrology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicCentral Venous Catheters and Hemodialysis
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityToronto General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineNephrologyRandomized controlled trialObservational studyInternal medicineIntensive care medicineGold standard (test)PopulationMEDLINEDialysisHemodialysisAlternative medicineVascular accessPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the gold standard for evidence in medicine, there is an overall paucity of RCTs in nephrology compared with other medical subspecialties. Consequently, the management of the dialysis population is often guided by nephrology clinical practice guidelines that are largely based on observational data or expert opinion. This review examines problems related to designing, conducting and completing RCTs in nephrology, highlighting major challenges, successes and frustrations, with specific examples as they pertain to the science of hemodialysis vascular access and their impact on clinical practice guidelines.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.052
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.090
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0520.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.108
GPT teacher head0.437
Teacher spread0.329 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designRandomized trial
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

Citations5
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of NephrologySame topicCentral Venous Catheters and HemodialysisFrench-language works237,207