MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2594913668 · doi:10.1159/000458751

Leveraging Big Data and Electronic Health Records to Enhance Novel Approaches to Acute Kidney Injury Research and Care

2017· review· en· W2594913668 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood Purification · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Kidney Injury Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAcute kidney injuryHealth recordsInformaticsHealth informaticsBig dataElectronic health recordMedical emergencyField (mathematics)Data scienceHealth careIntensive care medicineMedicineAcute careMedical recordComputer scienceData miningPolitical sciencePublic healthNursingInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While acute kidney injury (AKI) has been poorly defined historically, a decade of effort has culminated in a standardized, consensus definition. In parallel, electronic health records (EHRs) have been adopted with greater regularity, clinical informatics approaches have been refined, and the field of EHR-enabled care improvement and research has burgeoned. Although both fields have matured in isolation, uniting the 2 has the capacity to redefine AKI-related care and research. This article describes how the application of a consistent AKI definition to the EHR dataset can accurately and rapidly diagnose and identify AKI events. Furthermore, this electronic, automated diagnostic strategy creates the opportunity to develop predictive approaches, optimize AKI alerts, and trace AKI events across institutions, care platforms, and administrative datasets.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.970
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.567
GPT teacher head0.508
Teacher spread0.059 · 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