MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2792396523 · doi:10.1111/hdi.12631

Left ventricular assist device patient maintained on home hemodialysis: A novel class of patients to the home dialysis population

2018· article· en· W2792396523 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ramy M. Hanna, Daniel E. Cruz, Umut Selamet, Huma Hasnain, Murray Kwon, A. Baas, James M. Wilson

Bibliographic record

VenueHemodialysis International · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMechanical Circulatory Support Devices
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHemodialysisDialysisHome hemodialysisHeart failureVentricular assist deviceTransplantationDestination therapyPopulationIntensive care medicineKidney transplantationHeart transplantationSurgeryCardiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Severe heart failure is increasingly being managed by cardiac transplantation, and in some cases mechanical support devices serve as destination therapies. Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) were approved for destination therapy for end stage heart failure patients before the more advanced total artificial heart modality became available. One common complication of mechanical assist device placement is acute kidney injury. Historically, patients with mechanical support devices have had to have inpatient hemodialysis until combined heart kidney transplant. Though, some units have started accepting LVAD patients in outpatient dialysis clinics. The cost of in center hemodialysis remains high and home dialysis modalities are becoming increasingly popular. We report the first patient with an LVAD to undergo training and successful home hemodialysis while awaiting combined heart kidney transplantation.

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)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.214 · 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 designCase report
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

Citations4
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHemodialysis InternationalSame topicMechanical Circulatory Support DevicesFrench-language works237,207