MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4211142045 · doi:10.1016/j.kint.2018.12.025

Blood pressure in chronic kidney disease: conclusions from a Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Controversies Conference

2019· article· en· W4211142045 on OpenAlexaff
Alfred K. Cheung, Tara I. Chang, William C. Cushman, Susan L. Furth, Joachim H. Ix, Roberto Pecoits‐Filho, Vlado Perkovic, Mark J. Sarnak, Sheldon W. Tobe, Charles Tomson, Michael Cheung, David C. Wheeler, Wolfgang C. Winkelmayer­, Johannes F.E. Mann, George L. Bakris, Albertino Damasceno, Jamie P. Dwyer, Linda F. Fried, Richard Haynes, Nobuhito Hirawa, Hallvard Holdaas, Hassan N. Ibrahim, Julie R. Ingelfinger, Kunitoshi Iseki, Arif Khwaja, Paul L. Kimmel, Csaba P. Kövesdy, Elaine Ku, Edgar V. Lerma, Friedrich C. Luft, Jicheng Lv, Christopher B. McFadden, Paul Muntner, Martin G. Myers, Sankar D. Navaneethan, Gianfranco Parati, Aldo J. Peixoto, Mahboob Rahman, Michael V. Rocco, Cibele Isaac Saad Rodrigues, Simon D. Roger, George S. Stergiou, Laurie A. Tomlinson, Marcello Tonelli, Robert D. Toto, Yusuke Tsukamoto, Robert G. Walker, Angela Yee‐Moon Wang, Ji‐Guang Wang, Bradley A. Warady, Paul K. Whelton, Jeff D. Williamson

Bibliographic record

VenueKidney International · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
Canadian institutionsNOSM UniversityUniversity of Toronto
FundersRelypsaJanssen Research and DevelopmentNational Institutes of HealthAkebia TherapeuticsServierNovo NordiskFibroGenBayer HealthCareSanofiEuropean CommissionNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney DiseasesAmgenVifor PharmaPfizerGlaxoSmithKlineSatellite HealthcareFresenius Medical Care North AmericaCelgeneAstraZenecaEli Lilly and Company
KeywordsGuidelineKidney diseaseMedicineIntensive care medicineBlood pressureDialysisMultidisciplinary approachClinical PracticeDiseaseClinical trialInternal medicinePhysical therapyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In September 2017, KDIGO (Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes) convened a Controversies Conference titled Blood Pressure in Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD). The purpose of the meeting was to consider which recommendations from the 2012 KDIGO Clinical Practice Guideline for the Management of Blood Pressure in CKD should be reevaluated based on new evidence from clinical trials. Participants included a multidisciplinary panel of clinical and scientific experts. Discussions focused on the optimal means for measuring blood pressure (BP) as well as managing BP in CKD patients. Consistent with the 2012 Guideline, the conference did not address BP management in patients on maintenance dialysis.

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)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.709
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
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 science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.272
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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations74
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueKidney InternationalSame topicBlood Pressure and Hypertension StudiesFrench-language works237,207