MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

BURDEN, ACCESS, AND DISPARITIES IN KIDNEY DISEASE

2019· article· en· W2915450126 on OpenAlexaff
Deidra C. Crews, Aminu K. Bello, Gamal Saadi

Bibliographic record

VenueNephrology (Saint-Petersburg) · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDialysis and Renal Disease Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocioeconomic statusEthnic groupHealth equityPsychological interventionRace (biology)MedicineKidney diseaseResidenceDiseaseGerontologyEnvironmental healthPublic healthDemographyPopulationPolitical scienceSociologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Racial/ethnic and socioeconomic disparities in chronic kidney disease (CKD) have been documented for decades, yet little progress has been made in mitigating them. Several recent studies offer new insights into the root causes of these disparities, point to areas where future research is warranted and identify opportunities for changes in policy and clinical practice. Recently published evidence suggests that geographic disparities in CKD prevalence exist and vary by race. CKD progression is more rapid for racial/ethnic minority groups as compared to whites and may be largely, but not completely, explained by genetic factors. Stark socioeconomic disparities in outcomes for dialysis patients exist, and vary by race, place of residence and treatment facility. Disparities in access to living kidney donation may be driven primarily by the socioeconomic status of the donor as opposed to recipient factors. Recent studies highlight opportunities to eliminate disparities in CKD, including efforts to direct resources to areas and populations where disparities are most prevalent, efforts to understand how to best use emerging information on the contribution of genetic factors to disparities, and continued work to identify modifiable environmental, social, and behavioral factors for targeted interventions among high-risk populations.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.118
Threshold uncertainty score0.974

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.246 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations4
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNephrology (Saint-Petersburg)Same topicDialysis and Renal Disease ManagementFrench-language works237,207