Changes in arterial stiffness indices during a single haemodialysis session in end-stage renal disease population: a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Patients with end-stage renal disease are at higher risk of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, a risk mediated in part by increased aortic stiffness. Arterial stiffness is assessed at different anatomical locations (central elastic or peripheral muscular arteries) using a variety of mechanical biomarkers. However, little is known on the robustness of each of these mechanical biomarkers following a haemodynamic stress caused by a single haemodialysis (HD) session. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A systematic review has been designed and reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols. A targeted search strategy applicable in key databases (PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science and grey literature) is constructed to search articles and reviews from inception to 16 October 2020. Only articles of studies conducted with adults under chronic HD for kidney failure, with repeated measures of arterial stiffness metrics (pulse wave velocity, Augmentation Index, arterial distensibility or stiffness) following a before-and-after design surrounding a HD session will be selected. The screening process, data extraction and assessment of risk bias will be done by two independent pairs of reviewers. Meta-analysis will enable adjustments for potential confounders and subgroup analyses will be performed to discriminate changes in arterial stiffness metrics from elastic, muscular or global arterial territories. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study does not require ethical approval. Findings will be submitted for publication to relevant peer-reviewed journals and will be presented at profession-specific conferences. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020213946.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.059 | 0.068 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.022 | 0.026 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.051 | 0.006 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".