MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2954269534

Medical Scope:透析患者における残腎機能の重要性

2019· article· ja· W2954269534 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
西 慎一

Bibliographic record

VenuePharma Medica · 2019
Typearticle
Languageja
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Kidney Disease and Diabetes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScope (computer science)Computer science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

残腎機能(RRF)は,透析患者にとって生命予後およびQOL維持に関連する重要な指標といわれる。尿量はRRFの1 つの測定指標であるが,それ以外にRRFの測定指標として,溶質排泄能あるいは有機酸排泄能なども指標の1 つといわれている。しかし,RRFの定義および測定指標は完全には確立してないにもかかわらず,尿量あるいは溶質クリアランスが増加すると生命予後とQOLが改善する事実は指摘されている。また,肥満,高血圧,糖尿病などの生活習慣病はRRFを減少させることも指摘されている。逆にRRFが減少すると高血圧などは悪化することも指摘されており,これらの生活習慣病とRRFとの間に双方向性の関連がある。具体的なRRFの維持方法としては,incremental hemodialysisなどの透析方法の工夫,あるいは利尿薬や降圧薬の使用が有効といわれている。

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.297 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePharma MedicaSame topicChronic Kidney Disease and DiabetesFrench-language works237,207