MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3010100683 · doi:10.1097/mnh.0000000000000597

Screening for chronic kidney disease

2020· review· en· W3010100683 on OpenAlexaff
Sarah A. Curtis, Paul Komenda

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Nephrology & Hypertension · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Kidney Disease and Diabetes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaManitoba HealthSeven Oaks General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKidney diseaseMedicineIntensive care medicineTriageDialysisPsychological interventionNephrologyDiseaseHealth careDiabetes mellitusInternal medicineEmergency medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a pervasive and growing health concern that has a significant impact on mortality and morbidity, putting stress on global healthcare systems. CKD affects ∼14% of general populations and ∼36% of high-risk populations and is projected to rise in the coming decade due to increasing rates of diabetes and hypertension. RECENT FINDINGS: Screen, triage, and treat programs aim to detect early stage disease with the intention of promoting medical and lifestyle interventions in line with a patient's level of risk that may slow disease progression and reduce morbidity and mortality. Early detection facilitates appropriate risk stratification and coordination of care among patients, primary care and nephrology ensuring resources are utilized appropriately. SUMMARY: By using readily available laboratory measures, screening for CKD in high-risk populations is cost effective and beneficial to both individuals and healthcare systems. Program models such as Kidney Early Evaluation Program and First Nations Community Based Screening to Improve Kidney Health and Prevent Dialysis have proven the efficacy of screening initiatives in these groups, but improvements are required to maximize the benefits of early CKD detection.

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)0.006
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.003

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 head0.131
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.257 · 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

Citations30
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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