MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2808850676 · doi:10.1002/jbm4.10067

Fracture Risk in Dialysis and Kidney Transplanted Patients: A Systematic Review

2018· review· en· W2808850676 on OpenAlexafffund
Aboubacar Sidibé, David U Auguste, Louis‐Charles Desbiens, Catherine Fortier, Yue Pei Wang, Sonia Jean, Lynne Moore, Fabrice Mac‐Way

Bibliographic record

VenueJBMR Plus · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone and Joint Diseases
Canadian institutionsHôpital de l'Enfant-JésusHôpital du Saint-SacrementInstitut National de Santé Publique du QuébecUniversité LavalHôtel-Dieu de Québec
FundersCanadian HIV Trials Network, Canadian Institutes of Health ResearchFonds de Recherche du Québec - SantéKidney Foundation of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCanadian Society of Nephrology
KeywordsMedicineIncidence (geometry)DialysisCochrane LibraryInternal medicineHemodialysisPopulationKidney diseasePeritoneal dialysisMeta-analysisRisk factorRelative riskCohort studySurgeryConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Chronic kidney disease is associated with an increased risk of fracture and cardiovascular mortality. The risk of fracture in hemodialysis (HD), peritoneal dialysis (PD) and kidney transplant (KT) patients is higher when compared with the general population. However, there exists a knowledge gap concerning which group has the highest risk of fracture. We aimed to compare the risk of fracture in HD, PD, and KT populations. We conducted a systematic review of observational studies evaluating the risk of fracture in HD, PD, or KT patients. Eligible studies were searched using MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library from their inception to January 2016, and in grey literature. Incidences (cumulative and rate) of fracture were described together using the median, according to fracture sites, the data source (administrative database or cohort and clinical registry), and fracture diagnosis method. Prevalence estimates were described separately. We included 47 studies evaluating the risk of fracture in HD, PD, and KT populations. In administrative database studies, incidence of hip fracture in HD (median 11.45 per 1000 person‐years [p‐y]), range: 9.3 to 13.6 was higher than in KT (median 2.6 per 1000 p‐y; range 1.5 to 3.8) or in PD (median 5.2 per 1000 p‐y; range 4.1 to 6.3). In dialysis (HD+PD), three studies reported a higher incidence of hip fracture than in KT. Prevalent vertebral fracture (assessed by X‐rays or questionnaire) reported in HD was in a similar range as that reported in KT. Incidence of overall fracture was similar in HD and KT, from administrative databases studies, but lower in HD compared with KT, from cohorts or clinical registry studies. This systematic review suggests an important difference in fracture risk between HD, PD, and KT population, which vary according to the diagnosis method for fracture identification. © 2018 The Authors. JBMR Plus published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.006
Bibliometrics0.0080.010
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.287 · 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 designSystematic review
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

Citations47
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJBMR PlusSame topicBone and Joint DiseasesFrench-language works237,207