MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2963691516 · doi:10.23876/j.krcp.2018.37.3.277

Predictive parameters of arteriovenous fistula maturation in patients with end-stage renal disease

2018· article· en· W2963691516 on OpenAlexaff
Muhammad A. Siddiqui, Suhel Ashraff, Derek Santos, Robert Rush, Tom Carline, Zahid Raza

Bibliographic record

VenueKidney Research and Clinical Practice · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicCentral Venous Catheters and Hemodialysis
Canadian institutionsSaskatchewan HealthSaskatchewan Health Authority
FundersWellcome Trust
KeywordsMedicineEnd stage renal diseaseArteriovenous fistulaUrologyInternal medicineCardiologyDiseaseSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The objevctive of the present study was to explore the potential influence of blood markers and patient factors such as risk factors, kidney function profile, coagulation profile, lipid profile, body mass index, blood pressure, and vein diameter on the maturation of arteriovenous fistula (AVF) in patients with end-stage renal disease. METHODS: Retrospective data from 300 patients who had undergone AVF creation at the Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh were examined. A predictive logistic regression model was developed using a backward stepwise procedure. Model performance, discrimination, and calibration were assessed using the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve and Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test. The final model was externally validated by 100 prospective patients who received a new fistula at the Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh. RESULTS: > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Gender, PVD, and vein size are independent predictors of AVF maturation. The clinical utility of these risk categories in the maturation of AVF requires further evaluation in longer follow-up.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.094
GPT teacher head0.477
Teacher spread0.383 · 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 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

Citations37
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueKidney Research and Clinical PracticeSame topicCentral Venous Catheters and HemodialysisFrench-language works237,207