MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Chapter 6 Chronic interstitial disease

2008· book-chapter· en· W2492271523 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jonathan Barratt, Kevin Harris, Peter Topham

Bibliographic record

VenueOxford University Press eBooks · 2008
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSystemic Sclerosis and Related Diseases
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Extract Chapter contents ... Analgesic nephropathy Analgesic nephropathy is the commonest drug-induced chronic kidney disease. It is characterized by renal papillary necrosis and chronic tubulointerstitial nephritis. Papillary necrosis is an ischemic lesion of the inner medulla secondary to a decrease in blood flow, in combination with inflammation. Analgesic abuse accounts for >25% of cases of papillary necrosis in the USA, and 75% in Australia. Epidemiology Early recognition of analgesic abuse is important as it causes a completely preventable form of renal disease and renal failure. There is wide variation in the geographic incidence, based on differences in the annual per capita consumption of phenacetin. The incidence is highest in Australia (20%) and Sweden, and lowest in Canada (2–5%). Pathogenesis It results from the habitual consumption of combination analgesics, particularly those containing phenacetin, aspirin and caffeine. Dependence on these combination mixtures is encouraged by the caffeine component. This risk of developing renal disease is dependent on the cumulative dose. Renal injury begins after consumption of 2–3 kg of both phenacetin and aspirin, and is clinically evident after 5–7 kg is consumed over a period of 5–8 years.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.170
Threshold uncertainty score0.569

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1700.066

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.178 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOxford University Press eBooks→Same topicSystemic Sclerosis and Related Diseases→French-language works237,207→