MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2768612922 · doi:10.1111/nep.13143

Addressing the burden of dialysis around the world: <scp>A</scp> summary of the roundtable discussion on dialysis economics at the <scp>F</scp>irst <scp>I</scp>nternational <scp>C</scp>ongress of <scp>C</scp>hinese <scp>N</scp>ephrologists 2015

2017· review· en· W2768612922 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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueNephrology · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDialysis and Renal Disease Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDialysisPromotion (chess)Intensive care medicineChinaTransplantationFamily medicineDisease burdenKidney transplantationDiseaseInternal medicineLawPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To address the issue of heavy dialysis burden due to the rising prevalence of end-stage renal disease around the world, a roundtable discussion on the sustainability of managing dialysis burden around the world was held in Hong Kong during the First International Congress of Chinese Nephrologists in December 2015. The roundtable discussion was attended by experts from Hong Kong, China, Canada, England, Malaysia, Singapore, Taiwan and United States. Potential solutions to cope with the heavy burden on dialysis include the prevention and retardation of the progression of CKD; wider use of home-based dialysis therapy, particularly PD; promotion of kidney transplantation; and the use of renal palliative care service.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Open science, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.178
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.007
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.005
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0090.006
Research integrity0.0030.004
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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.273 · 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