MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2514261029 · doi:10.1097/mnh.0000000000000272

New drugs to prevent and treat hyperkalemia

2016· review· en· W2514261029 on OpenAlexaff
Laurence Lepage, Katherine Desforges, Jean‐Philippe Lafrance

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Nephrology & Hypertension · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPotassium and Related Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalHôpital Maisonneuve-Rosemont
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHyperkalemiaMedicineDiscontinuationKidney diseaseHeart failureIntensive care medicineAdverse effectDiabetes mellitusInternal medicineEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Hyperkalemia is frequent, but occurs mostly in patients with chronic kidney disease and is often the cause of discontinuation or omission of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors in patients with diabetes, chronic kidney disease and heart failure. RECENT FINDINGS: Without much evidence in the literature on its efficacy, sodium polystyrene sulfonate is being used frequently in the clinical setting to treat hyperkalemia. In the last few years, two new promising agents have been developed to treat hyperkalemia - patiromer and sodium zirconium cyclosilicate 9 (ZS-9). Both patiromer and ZS-9 have been shown to decrease potassium in patients with hyperkalemia and then to maintain normokalemia. Gastrointestinal adverse events were more frequent with patiromer, and edema occurred in patients using high doses of ZS-9, possibly due to its high sodium content. SUMMARY: Although patiromer and ZS-9 are very promising in terms of safety and efficacy, many questions remain, mostly in terms of selection of patients, long-term effects and costs.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0070.002

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.304 · 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

Citations4
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in Nephrology & HypertensionSame topicPotassium and Related DisordersFrench-language works237,207