MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4205663571 · doi:10.1007/s40620-021-01204-w

Characteristics of outpatients referred for a first consultation with a nephrologist: impact of different guidelines

2022· article· en· W4205663571 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Nephrology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicHealthcare Systems and Technology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineNephrologyKidney diseaseInternal medicineRenal functionReferralProteinuriaCreatinineIntensive care medicineKidneyFamily medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) affects > 10% of the population but not all CKD patients require referral to a nephrologist. Various recommendations for referral to nephrologists are proposed worldwide. We examined the profile of French patients consulting a nephrologist for the first time and compared these characteristics with the recommendations of the International Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO), the French “Haute Autorité de Santé” (HAS), and the Canadian Kidney Failure Risk Equation (KFRE). University Hospital electronic medical records were used to study patients referred for consultation with a nephrologist for the first time from 2016 to 2018. Patient characteristics (age, sex, diabetic status, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine protein-to-creatinine ratio (PCR), etiology reported by the nephrologist) and 1-year patient follow-up were analyzed and compared with the KDIGO, HAS and Canadian-KFRE recommendations for referral to a nephrologist. The stages were defined according to the KDIGO classification, based upon kidney function and proteinuria. The 1,547 included patients had a median age of 71 [61–79] years with 56% males and 37% with diabetes. The main nephropathies were vascular (40%) and glomerular (20%). The KDIGO classification revealed 30%, 47%, 19%, 4% stages G1-2 to G5, and 50%, 22%, 28% stages A1-A3, respectively. According to KDIGO, HAS and KFRE scores, nephrologist referral was indicated for 42%, 57% and 80% of patients respectively, with poor agreement between recommendations. Furthermore, we observed 890 (57%) patients with an eGFR> 30 ml/min and a urine protein to creatinine ratio 0.5 g/g, mostly aged over 65 years (67%); 40% were diabetic, and 57% had a eGFR > 45 ml/min/1.73m 2 , 56% were diagnosed as vascular nephropathy and 11% with unknown nephropathy. These results underline the importance of better identifying patients for referral to a nephrologist and informing general practitioners. Other referral criteria (age and etiology of the nephropathy) are debatable.

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.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.127
Threshold uncertainty score0.356

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.259 · 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