The Association Between Glycaemic Variability and Progression of Chronic Kidney Disease: a Systematic Review
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The study aims to evaluate the association between glycaemic variability and the risk of chronic kidney disease (CKD) progression in patients with diabetes and comorbid kidney disease. A comprehensive search was conducted of three databases from their inception to March 2022: Medline, Embase, and CINHAL. Publications were screened for eligibility and the quality of studies included was appraised using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale. Extracted data were tabulated and reported in a narrative synthesis. Fourteen studies were included in the review providing data on 62,498 participants. Eight studies reported that greater glycaemic variability was associated with an increased incidence of CKD. Three studies reported an increased likelihood of CKD progression in those with high glycaemic variability, although the rate and risk of progression varied across the studies. Three studies reported an increased risk of progression to end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) with higher glycaemic variability. One study found that high glycaemic variability was associated with a decreased risk of progression to ESKD. Greater glycaemic variability was associated with the onset and progression of CKD. More research is required to verify whether glycaemic variability increases the risk of progression to ESKD in patients with diabetes and mild/moderate comorbid CKD.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it