MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2396015853 · doi:10.2215/cjn.11961115

The See Kidney Disease Targeted Screening Program for CKD

2016· article· en· W2396015853 on OpenAlexaffabout
Lauren Galbraith, Paul E. Ronksley, Lianne Barnieh, Joanne Kappel, Braden Manns, Susan Samuel, Min Jun, Rob Weaver, Nadine Valk, Brenda R. Hemmelgarn

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Kidney Disease and Diabetes
Canadian institutionsKidney Foundation of CanadaUniversity of SaskatchewanUniversity of Calgary
FundersHealth Research Board
KeywordsMedicineKidney diseaseInternal medicinePopulationRisk factorConfidence intervalDiabetes mellitusEpidemiologyRenal functionIntensive care medicineEnvironmental healthEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The effectiveness of targeted screening for identification of CKD is largely unknown. The See Kidney Disease (SeeKD) targeted screening project aimed to determine the prevalence of unrecognized CKD in Canada. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: The SeeKD project was conducted across Canada using a convenience sample approach and events to identify adults with risk factors for CKD (i.e., diabetes, hypertension, vascular disease, family history of kidney problems, etc.). Participants with at least one risk factor received a point-of-care creatinine measurement to identify unrecognized CKD (CKD-Epidemiology Collaboration eGFR <60 ml/min per 1.73 m(2)). Baseline information included clinical characteristics, sociodemographics, and health knowledge. Semistructured telephone interviews were conducted with each Kidney Foundation of Canada branch (regionalized locations) after the screening events to characterize local screening strategies, which were subsequently categorized as individual-targeted (specifically targeting individuals at risk of CKD) and community-targeted (event in a community location in proximity to a high-risk population). We calculated the prevalence of unrecognized CKD overall, and by screening strategy. RESULTS: Between January 2011 and February 2014, 6329 Canadians participated in SeeKD screening events. Participants were predominantly female (65.3%), middle-aged (mean, 58.5 years), and the majority (88.9%) self-reported at least one risk factor for CKD. Of participants with at least one risk factor, 92.3% (n=5194) were screened, of whom 18.8% (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 17.8 to 19.9) had unrecognized CKD; the majority (13.8%) had stage 3a CKD (eGFR=45-60 ml/min per 1.73 m(2)). The prevalence of unrecognized CKD was higher for branches with individual versus community-targeted events (21.9% [95% CI, 20.5 to 23.4] versus 14.7% [95% CI, 13.2 to 16.2]). CONCLUSIONS: Targeted screening identified a high proportion of individuals with risk factors for CKD and a high prevalence of unrecognized CKD. Future research will evaluate the ability of targeted screening to promote self-management behaviors addressing priorities for people with CKD.

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)0.002
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 score0.932
Threshold uncertainty score0.137

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.339 · 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

Citations40
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Journal of the American Society of NephrologySame topicChronic Kidney Disease and DiabetesFrench-language works237,207