MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2922193192 · doi:10.1097/mnh.0000000000000494

Widening the lens to childhood

2019· review· en· W2922193192 on OpenAlexaff
Christie Rampersad, Allison Dart

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Nephrology & Hypertension · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Kidney Disease and Diabetes
Canadian institutionsChildren's Hospital Research Institute of ManitobaUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLens (geology)MedicinePhysicsOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Lifetime risk of outcomes is emerging as a highly relevant health indicator, even in the context of low absolute risk of disease progression in short time frames. Evidence to support this concept for kidney failure is increasing, with growing emphasis on the long-term impact of risk factors occurring early in life. RECENT FINDINGS: Proteinuria and stage of chronic kidney disease (CKD) are now established predictors of CKD progression in children, and youth with type 2 diabetes are emerging as a group at significant risk. Recent population-based studies have also examined the lifetime risk of end-stage renal disease in individuals with any childhood CKD. A recent study found that even in the absence of biomarkers of renal injury, childhood CKD can increase the lifetime risk of end-stage renal disease four-fold, and up to 10-fold in adults less than 40 years of age. SUMMARY: Children with CKD are at high lifetime risk of kidney failure and require follow-up. Identifying children at highest lifetime risk through the use of biomarkers and risk equations, and determining the optimal duration and intensity of follow-up requires further 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.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.002

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 head0.134
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in Nephrology & HypertensionSame topicChronic Kidney Disease and DiabetesFrench-language works237,207