MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2810693762 · doi:10.1097/hco.0000000000000539

Management of patients with end-stage renal disease

2018· review· en· W2810693762 on OpenAlexaff
Reena Karkhanis, Derrick Y. Tam, Stephen E. Fremes

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Cardiology · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Kidney Injury Research
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science CentreUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineConventional PCIPercutaneous coronary interventionPerioperativeCoronary artery diseaseInternal medicineCardiologyObservational studyEnd stage renal diseaseHemodialysisContext (archaeology)SurgeryMyocardial infarction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Coronary artery disease is common in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) on hemodialysis. ESRD patients are prone to atherosclerosis and are likely to present with advanced CAD requiring coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). RECENT FINDINGS: Individual observational studies and aggregated results comparing PCI to CABG have shown an increased risk of early postoperative mortality in the CABG group followed by a decrease in late mortality and cardiovascular events. Drug eluting stents are preferred to bare metal stents in patients undergoing PCI. Bilateral versus single internal thoracic arterial grafting strategies showed no difference in survival, freedom from cardiac death or freedom from cardiac events. There was no clear survival advantage to off-pump CABG over on-pump CABG in ESRD patients. Evidence to support either CABG or PCI was limited to retrospective observational studies that were at risk for treatment allocation bias. SUMMARY: CABG carries an upfront risk of increased perioperative mortality while demonstrating late survival benefit compared with PCI. Thus, in the context of balancing these competing risks and benefits, deciding on the most appropriate treatment in this high-risk cohort is challenging. Comprehensive patient evaluation by a multidisciplinary team is strongly 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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.906
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.122
GPT teacher head0.441
Teacher spread0.319 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations10
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in CardiologySame topicAcute Kidney Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207