MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2587913309 · doi:10.1093/ndt/gfv179.04

FP475PREDICTION AND VALIDATION OF HEMODIALYSIS DURATION IN INTENTIONAL METHANOL POISONING

2015· article· en· W2587913309 on OpenAlexaff
Philippe Lachance, Fabrice Mac‐Way, Simon Desmeules, Sacha A. De Serres, Pierre Douville, Mohsen Agharazii

Bibliographic record

VenueNephrology Dialysis Transplantation · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicBlood donation and transfusion practices
Canadian institutionsHôtel-Dieu de Québec
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMethanol poisoningHemodialysisDuration (music)Emergency medicineIntensive care medicineInternal medicineMethanol

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction and Aims: Acidosis and methanol monitoring is essential in determination of hemodialysis (HD) duration in cases of methanol poisoning (MP). However, methanol monitoring is not easily available, leading to undue extension of HD. Accuracy and safety of prediction models for HD duration have never been validated in large number of cases of MP in the era of high-efficiency HD. The goal of the present study was to determine methanol elimination half-life, use a training set of cases for proposing a half-life based approach to determining HD duration, and finally to validate our approach in a validation set of MP. Methods: In a retrospective cohort study, we identified 71 episodes of MP in 55 subjects that were treated by alcohol dehydrogenase blockade, folinic acid and HD. All HD sessions were performed with high-efficiency filters with a surface area > 2.0 m2 and a dialysate flow of 750 ml/min. Using methanol levels during HD, we calculated methanol elimination T1/2 for individual episodes of MP through a one phase decay exponential regression analysis.

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)0.002
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.228 · 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

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueNephrology Dialysis TransplantationSame topicBlood donation and transfusion practicesFrench-language works237,207