MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4248399997 · doi:10.1093/ndt/gfn199

Clinical research of kidney diseases II: problems of study design

2008· article· en· W4248399997 on OpenAlexaff
Pietro Ravani, Patrick S. Parfrey, Elizabeth Dicks, Brendan J. Barrett

Bibliographic record

VenueNephrology Dialysis Transplantation · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHealthcare Systems and Public Health
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineKidneyKidney diseaseResearch designIntensive care medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nephrol. Dial. Transplant., 2007; doi:10.1093/ndt/gfm433 Measures of association in diagnostic studies Test (T) sensitivity (SN) and specificity (SP) are the probabilities of T+ among D+ (T+|D+) and T− among D− (T−|D−), where ‘|’ means ‘given’ or ‘conditional on’. Positive predictive value (PPV; D+|T+) and negative predictive value (NPV; D−|T−) are posterior or post-test probabilities. Sensitivity and specificity are relatively stable test characteristics since they depend on the mechanism of detection/action and the population characteristics. Conversely, PPV and NPV vary depending on disease prevalence (Pr = D+/Totals). The likelihood ratio of a positive test (LR+) is the ratio of true positive and false positive rates, SN/[1−SP]. The likelihood ratio of a negative test (LR−) is the ratio of false negative and true negative rates, (1−SN)/SP. Likelihood ratios estimate how much more likely the presence and absence of the disease are when the results of the test are positive and negative respectively. Of note, the False+ rate and False− rate correspond to the type I (alpha) and type II (beta) error rates of an outcome study. This table was previously published with errors. The authors would like to apologize for this mistake and any inconvenience.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.407

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.183
GPT teacher head0.443
Teacher spread0.260 · 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.

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

Citations2
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNephrology Dialysis TransplantationSame topicHealthcare Systems and Public HealthFrench-language works237,207