MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2591711560 · doi:10.1177/2054358117695570

Choosing Wisely

2017· article· en· W2591711560 on OpenAlexaffabout
Emilie Chan, Brenda R. Hemmelgarn, Scott Klarenbach, Braden Manns, Reem A. Mustafa, Gihad Nesrallah, Rory McQuillan

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Kidney Health and Disease · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare cost, quality, practices
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of CalgaryHumber River Regional HospitalMcMaster UniversityUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineKidney diseaseNephrologyFamily medicineInternal medicineDelphi methodDiabetic nephropathyIntensive care medicineKidney

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The purpose of this review is to contribute to the Choosing Wisely Canada campaign and develop a list of 5 items for nephrology health care professionals and patients to re-evaluate based on evidence that they are overused or misused. SOURCES OF INFORMATION: A working group was formed from the Canadian Society of Nephrology (CSN) Clinical Practice Guidelines Committee. This working group sequentially used a multistage Delphi method, a survey of CSN members, a modified Delphi process, and a comprehensive literature review to determine 10 candidate items representing potentially ineffective care in nephrology. An in-person vote by CSN members at their Annual General Meeting was used to rank each item based on their relevance to and potential impact on patients with kidney disease to derive the final 5 items on the list. KEY MESSAGES: One hundred thirty-four of 609 (22%) CSN members responded to the survey, from which the CSN working group identified 10 candidate-misused items. Sixty-five CSN members voted on the ranking of these items. The top 5 recommendations selected for the final list were (1) do not initiate erythropoiesis-stimulating agents in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) with hemoglobin levels greater than or equal to 100 g/L without symptoms of anemia; (2) do not prescribe nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for individuals with hypertension or heart failure or CKD of all causes, including diabetes; (3) do not prescribe angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors in combination with angiotensin II receptor blockers for the treatment of hypertension, diabetic nephropathy or heart failure; (4) do not initiate chronic dialysis without ensuring a shared decision-making process between patients, their families, and their nephrology health care team; and (5) do not initiate dialysis in outpatients with CKD category G5-ND in the absence of clinical indications. LIMITATIONS: A low survey response rate of both community and academic nephrologists could contribute to sampling bias. However, the purpose of this report is to generate discussion, rather than study practice variation. IMPLICATIONS: These 5 evidence-based recommendations aim to improve outcomes and individualize care for patients with kidney disease, while reducing inefficiencies and preventing harm.

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)0.053
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.275
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: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.053
Threshold uncertainty score0.281

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0530.275
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.004
Bibliometrics0.0110.008
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0130.011
Open science0.0040.005
Research integrity0.0070.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.005

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 head0.525
GPT teacher head0.538
Teacher spread0.013 · 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
GenreCommentary

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

Citations7
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Kidney Health and DiseaseSame topicHealthcare cost, quality, practicesFrench-language works237,207