MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2399801379

[Specifics of diabetic nephropathy, viewpoint in diabetology: trends of diabetic nephropathy in diabetes].

2006· article· en· W2399801379 on OpenAlexaff
Michel Krempf

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDiabetes and associated disorders
Canadian institutionsHotel Dieu Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDiabetic nephropathyAlbuminuriaNephropathyBlood pressureInternal medicineGlycemicDiabetes mellitusProteinuriaType 2 diabetesPopulationEndocrinologyKidney
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The evolution of diabetic nephropathy has been studied by Peter Rossing on a cohort of diabetic patients followed at the Steno hospital of Copenhagen during more than 20 years. In the diabetics of type 1, existence of albuminuria at the upper threshold of the normal range, male gender, high blood pressure and poor glycemic control with a very high HbAlc are the main predictive factors of nephropathy evolution. In this population, nephropathy clearly increases the risks of mortality and cardiovascular morbidity. However, the comparison with older studies showed that better control of glycemia, blood pressure and cholesterol, reduction of tobacco consumption and improvement of proteinuria due to antihypertensive treatments, were able to sharply decrease mortality and cardiovascular morbidity with a relative risk reduction of 60%. In type 2 diabetics, besides factors observed in type 1 diabetic patients, the presence of anemia is a predictive criterion of nephropathy progression. In these patients, prevention keys lie not only in the control of glycemia and blood pressure as in type 1 diabetics, but also in that of anemia.

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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.047

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.003

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.190
Teacher spread0.184 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations2
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicDiabetes and associated disordersFrench-language works237,207