MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2801940029 · doi:10.1016/j.carj.2017.11.002

Gadolinium-Based Contrast Agents in Kidney Disease: Comprehensive Review and Clinical Practice Guideline Issued by the Canadian Association of Radiologists

2018· review· en· W2801940029 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

VenueCanadian Association of Radiologists Journal · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicLanthanide and Transition Metal Complexes
Canadian institutionsChildren's Hospital of Eastern OntarioCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalUniversity of CalgaryUniversité de MontréalQueen Elizabeth II Health Sciences CentreUniversity of British ColumbiaOttawa HospitalUniversity of TorontoDalhousie UniversityUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineNephrogenic systemic fibrosisGuidelineKidney diseaseDialysisIntensive care medicineDosingRenal functionHemodialysisPeritoneal dialysisInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Use of gadolinium-based contrast agents (GBCAs) in renal impairment is controversial, with physician and patient apprehension in acute kidney injury (AKI), chronic kidney disease (CKD), and dialysis because of concerns regarding nephrogenic systemic fibrosis (NSF). The position that GBCAs are absolutely contraindicated in AKI, CKD stage 4 or 5 (estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR] <30 mL/min/1.73 m 2 ) and dialysis-dependent patients is outdated, and may limit access to clinically necessary contrast-enhanced MRI examinations. Following a comprehensive review of the literature and reported NSF cases to date, a committee of radiologists and nephrologists developed clinical practice guidelines to assist physicians in making decisions regarding GBCA administrations. In patients with mild-to-moderate CKD (eGFR ≥30 and <60 mL/min/1.73 m 2 ), administration of standard doses of GBCA is safe and no additional precautions are necessary. In patients with AKI, with severe CKD (eGFR <30 mL/min/1.73 m 2 ), or on dialysis, administration of GBCAs should be considered individually and alternative imaging modalities utilized whenever possible. If GBCAs are necessary, newer GBCAs may be administered with patient consent obtained by a physician (or their delegate), citing an exceedingly low risk (much less than 1%) of developing NSF. Standard GBCA dosing should be used; half or quarter dosing is not recommended and repeat injections should be avoided. Dialysis-dependent patients should receive dialysis; however, initiating dialysis or switching from peritoneal to hemodialysis to reduce the risk of NSF is unproven. Use of a macrocyclic ionic instead of macrocyclic nonionic GBCA or macrocyclic instead of newer linear GBCA to further prevent NSF is unproven. Gadopentetate dimeglumine, gadodiamide, and gadoversetamide remain absolutely contraindicated in patients with AKI, with stage 4 or 5 CKD, or on dialysis. The panel agreed that screening for renal disease is important but less critical when using macrocyclic and newer linear GBCAs. Monitoring for and reporting of potential cases of NSF in patients with AKI or CKD who have received GBCAs is recommended.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.210
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.312 · 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