MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3115046860 · doi:10.1681/asn.20203110s1301c

Glomerular Diseases and Immunosuppression Practices in Latin America During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Analysis from GlomCon Latin America Working Group (LGlomCon)

2020· article· en· W3115046860 on OpenAlexaff
Julio A. Gutierrez-Prieto, Franco H. Cabeza Rivera, Sonia Rodríguez Ramírez, Javier Soto-Vargas, Denisse Arellano-Mendez, Desiree Garcia Anton, Diana Aguirre, Blanca Martinez-Chagolla, Carmen Ávila-Casado

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Society of Nephrology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCOVID-19 and healthcare impacts
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImmunosuppressionMedicineRegimenPandemicInternal medicineCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)DiseaseImmunologyInfectious disease (medical specialty)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: As COVID-19 spreads across the world, nephrologists are facing difficult decisions regarding the management of active glomerular diseases (GD). We aimed to report how COVID-19 pandemic may have changed the use of immunotherapies among nephrologists In Latin America (LA) for the treatment of glomerulopathies. Methods: Descriptive analysis extracted from an online survey carried out among nephrologists, renal pathologists and other health workers treating kidney diseases between May 20-27, 2020 from sixteen Spanish speaking LA countries divided into 6 categories. We present the results for the GD and immunosuppression category. Results: 430 responses were obtained of which 360 (84%) were considered for analysis. The participants were mainly nephrologists 276 (86%), renal pathologists 13 (4%) and physicians in training 11 (3%). 213 (59%) of the respondents treat patients with GD. For patients at risk but without COVID-19 infection, the induction immunosuppression for GD treatment was not changed by 54.1% of the respondents while 24.2% gave only a fraction of it and 21.7% deferred the induction treatment. For maintenance immunosuppression, the same regimen was maintained by 74.2% of the respondents, 24.3% decreased it and 1.5% suspended it completely. In case of relapse or flare, 53.6% used standard increase of immunosuppression, 39.7% increased it but at lower levels than usual and 6.7% continued the maintenance regimen. For patients already on immunosuppression diagnosed with COVID-19 infection, 42% would decrease immunosuppressive regimens for mild disease, 62.3% in case of moderate disease and 70.8% would consider completely discontinuing immunosuppression in case of severe disease. Conclusions: Over 40% of the respondents in LA are already prescribing lower than recommended doses of immunosuppression for induction, relapses or flares as a preventive strategy in the context of COVID-19 pandemic. How this change in practice would affect the renal outcomes remains to be seen. The experience in the treatment of GD in patients with concurrent COVID-19 infection remains limited.

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)0.002
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 score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.300 · 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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Society of Nephrology→Same topicCOVID-19 and healthcare impacts→French-language works237,207→