MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3215683792 · doi:10.24908/pocus.v6i2.14775

POCUS Evaluation in Acute Kidney Injury

2021· article· en· W3215683792 on OpenAlexaffvenue
VANESSA HOYTFOX, Brittney Ward, Emily J. Cox, Kang Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenuePOCUS Journal · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPediatric Urology and Nephrology Studies
Canadian institutionsProvidence Health Care
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineUrinalysisAcute kidney injuryHydronephrosisDysuriaPyuriaPhysical examinationKidneyDifferential diagnosisNephrologyUrinary systemIntensive care medicineRadiologySurgeryPathologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Acute kidney injury is a common clinical problem encountered in general internal medicine. The evaluation of acute kidney injury is mainly driven by the patient's clinical history, physical exam, and laboratory investigation including urinalysis and urine sediment examination. Point of care ultrasound (POCUS) may be a useful tool to help clinicians to narrow and/or prioritize differential diagnosis in patients presenting with acute kidney injury. Here we present a case of a 67-year-old male presenting with dysuria, fevers, and flank pain along with elevation in serum creatinine who was admitted with concern for acute kidney injury secondary to complicated urinary tract infection. Subsequent kidney POCUS of the kidneys and bladder showed bilateral anechoic fluid collection within the kidney sinus with dilated calyces suggestive of bilateral hydronephrosis, most likely due to a new diagnosis of benign prostatic hyperplasia. This case demonstrates the use of POCUS-obtained valuable diagnostic information and subsequent therapeutic management for this patient presenting with suspected acute kidney injury.

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)0.004
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.309 · 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

Citations5
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePOCUS JournalSame topicPediatric Urology and Nephrology StudiesFrench-language works237,207