MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Screening for diabetic kidney disease in primary care

2020· article· en· W3012808215 on OpenAlexaff
Michelle Deem, Jennifer Rice, Kathleen Valentine, Jean Ellen Zavertnik, Manju Lakra

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Nurse Practitioner · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Management and Research
Canadian institutionsFoothills Medical Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMicroalbuminuriaMedicinePrimary careDiabetes mellitusDiseaseIntensive care medicinePrimary health careDisease managementKidney diseasePrimary care physicianFamily medicineInternal medicineEndocrinologyEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Gaps in care currently exist between diabetic kidney disease (DKD) guidelines and diabetes management in primary care settings. Implementation of quality improvement (QI) initiatives often improves these gaps in care. This article outlines a QI initiative exploring whether a local Federally Qualified Health Center could improve rates of screening for microalbuminuria, diagnosis of DKD, and treatment of the disorder in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

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)0.008
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.073

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.278 · 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

Citations10
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Nurse PractitionerSame topicDiabetes Management and ResearchFrench-language works237,207