MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2737137632 · doi:10.1188/17.cjon.481-487

Atypical Hemolytic Uremic Syndrome: Achieving Positive Patient Outcomes With Early Diagnosis and Appropriate Management
.

2017· review· en· W2737137632 on OpenAlexaff
Dmitriy Sverdlin, Brenda Peters-Watral

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicComplement system in diseases
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIntensive care medicineAtypical hemolytic uremic syndromePsychological interventionDiseaseMultidisciplinary approachPediatricsPathologyImmunologyNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Atypical hemolytic uremic syndrome (aHUS), a condition found in adult and pediatric populations, can be idiopathic or acquired as a result of major systemic changes. aHUS presents with a wide array of symptoms that can be attributed to other less dangerous conditions. Because of its complex nature and rare occurrence, it is typically diagnosed in later stages and with multiple organ involvement. . OBJECTIVES: This article provides an overview of aHUS and available interventions. . METHODS: Current aHUS literature was reviewed, and implications for nursing care were identified. . FINDINGS: Early diagnosis is crucial to achieve positive patient outcomes. The difference in pathology among the different thrombotic microangiopathies and their appropriate management must be understood. Although aHUS requires a multidisciplinary approach, nurses play a crucial role in assessing disease progression and identifying possible complications.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.230 · 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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicComplement system in diseasesFrench-language works237,207