MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2888819120 · doi:10.1159/000492529

Fibrillary Glomerulonephritis with Crescentic and Necrotizing Glomerulonephritis and Concurrent Thrombotic Microangiopathy

2018· article· en· W2888819120 on OpenAlexaff
Calvin Tsui, Pouneh Dokouhaki, Bhanu Prasad

Bibliographic record

VenueCase Reports in Nephrology and Dialysis · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRenal Diseases and Glomerulopathies
Canadian institutionsRegina General HospitalUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineThrombotic microangiopathyMicrohematuriaRenal biopsyMicroangiopathyPathologyGlomerulopathyGlomerulonephritisProteinuriaMesangiumGastroenterologyBiopsyInternal medicineKidneyDiabetes mellitusEndocrinologyDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present a 77-year-old Caucasian woman who presented with nephrotic-range proteinuria, microhematuria, renal impairment, and extremely elevated blood pressure. She had a long history of well-controlled type 2 diabetes. Renal biopsy revealed fibrillary deposits in the mesangium and glomerular basement membrane consistent with fibrillary glomerulopathy (FGN), with crescentic changes and thrombotic microangiopathy (TMA). We could not identify any radiological, clinical, or laboratory evidence of autoimmune disorders, lymphoproliferative disorders, and malignancy. It was decided not to offer her any immunosuppressive therapy, as she was frail with substantial renal damage on the biopsy. Five months after presentation, she gradually progressed to requiring renal replacement therapy and is currently on maintenance hemodialysis. Crescentic changes in FGN, though rare, have been previously described, but the concurrent presence of TMA has never been previously reported.

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)0.002
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: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.239 · 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

Citations5
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCase Reports in Nephrology and DialysisSame topicRenal Diseases and GlomerulopathiesFrench-language works237,207