Confidence in Women’s Health: A Cross Border Survey of Adult Nephrologists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A range of women's health issues are intimately related to chronic kidney disease, yet nephrologists' confidence in counseling or managing these issues has not been evaluated. The women's health working group of Cure Glomerulonephropathy (CureGN), an international prospective cohort study of glomerular disease, sought to assess adult nephrologists' training in, exposure to, and confidence in managing women's health. A 25-item electronic questionnaire was disseminated in the United States (US) and Canada via CureGN and Canadian Society of Nephrology email networks and the American Society of Nephrology Kidney News. Response frequencies were summarized using descriptive statistics. Responses were compared across provider age, gender, country of practice, and years in practice using Pearson's chi-squared test or Fisher's exact test. Among 154 respondents, 53% were women, 58% practiced in the US, 77% practiced in an academic setting, and the median age was 41⁻45 years. Over 65% of respondents lacked confidence in women's health issues, including menstrual disorders, preconception counseling, pregnancy management, and menopause. Most provided contraception or preconception counseling to less than one woman per month, on average. Only 12% had access to interdisciplinary pregnancy clinics. Finally, 89% felt that interdisciplinary guidelines and/or continuing education seminars would improve knowledge. Participants lacked confidence in both counseling and managing women's health. Innovative approaches are warranted to improve the care of women with kidney disease and might include the expansion of interdisciplinary clinics, the development of case-based teaching materials, and interdisciplinary treatment guidelines focused on this patient group.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".