MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2765754065 · doi:10.1097/hjh.0000000000001588

Cause of renal infarction

2017· article· en· W2765754065 on OpenAlexaff
Anne‐Laure Faucon, Guillaume Bobrie, Anne‐Sophie Jannot, Arshid Azarine, Pierre‐François Plouin, Michel Azizi, Laurence Amar

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Hypertension · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRenal and Vascular Pathologies
Canadian institutionsHypertension Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineFibromuscular dysplasiaRenal arteryInfarctionInternal medicineKidneyCardiologyRadiologySurgeryMyocardial infarction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Renal infarction can cause abrupt and severe hypertension and less frequently renal failure. Renal infarction results from disruption of renal blood flow in the main ipsilateral renal artery or in a segmental branch. Underlying mechanism is either general, 'embolic' or 'thrombophilic', or local related to primary 'renal artery lesion'. It depends on various causes. In absence of an identified cause, renal infarction is classified as 'idiopathic'. Previous studies report a significant number of 'idiopathic' renal infarction. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to analyze various renal infarction causes. METHODS: Between July 2000 and June 2015, 259 consecutive patients with renal infarction were admitted to our hospital center and retrospectively identified from weekly multidisciplinary round. Main clinical and biological characteristics were extracted from clinical data warehouse. Renal imaging was reviewed by two readers unaware of the diagnosis. RESULTS: Of 259 initially identified patients, 30 were excluded owing to a lack of imaging or clinical data and 43 because iatrogenic renal infarction. In the 186 studied patients, dissection was observed in 76 patients (40.8%) and occlusion in 75 (40.3%). Renal infarction mechanisms were 'renal artery lesion' (n = 151; 81.2%), 'embolic' (n = 17; 9.1%), 'thrombophilic' (n = 11; 5.9%) and 'idiopathic' (n = 7; 3.8%). Predominant renal artery lesions were atherosclerosis disease (n = 52; 34.4%) followed by dissecting hematoma (n = 35; 23.2%) and fibromuscular dysplasia (n = 29; 19.2%). Right and left kidneys were equally involved. CONCLUSION: Renal artery lesion is the most frequent cause of renal infarction. This result underlines the need for extensive arterial exploration to identify the renal infarction mechanism and, in case of renal artery lesion, the underlying vascular disease.

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)0.002
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.100
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.213 · 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

Citations43
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of HypertensionSame topicRenal and Vascular PathologiesFrench-language works237,207