MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3091117851 · doi:10.1016/j.ekir.2020.09.024

Ashwagandha and Kidney Transplant Rejection

2020· article· en· W3091117851 on OpenAlexafffund
Sriram Sriperumbuduri, Mishaal Shahid Umar, Ginette Lajoie-Starkell, Todd Fairhead

Bibliographic record

VenueKidney International Reports · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhytochemicals and Medicinal Plants
Canadian institutionsCanadian Electricity AssociationOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
FundersDepartment of Medicine, Ottawa Hospital
KeywordsMedicineOrgan transplantationGraft rejectionKidney transplantAdverse effectKidney transplantationNephrectomyKidneyTransplant rejectionImmune systemTransplantationIntensive care medicineSurgeryInternal medicineImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ashwagandha is an herbal product traditionally believed to have a wide array of effects including immune stimulation. This can have implications for organ transplant recipients such as rejection and possible graft loss. Here, we present the course of a kidney transplant patient who developed acute rejection requiring a graft nephrectomy after the use of ashwagandha. We recommend that organ transplant recipients should be warned of the potential adverse effects of easily available herbal medications including ashwagandha.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.520
Threshold uncertainty score0.397

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.251 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations4
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueKidney International ReportsSame topicPhytochemicals and Medicinal PlantsFrench-language works237,207