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 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.279
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.016
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