MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4306783500 · doi:10.1016/j.kint.2022.06.013

Executive summary of the KDIGO 2022 Clinical Practice Guideline for Diabetes Management in Chronic Kidney Disease: an update based on rapidly emerging new evidence

2022· article· en· W4306783500 on OpenAlexaff
Peter Rossing, Maria Luiza Caramori, Juliana C.N. Chan, Hiddo J.L. Heerspink, Clint Hurst, Kamlesh Khunti, Adrian Liew, Erin D. Michos, Sankar D. Navaneethan, Wasiu A. Olowu, Tami Sadusky, Nikhil Tandon, Katherine R. Tuttle, Christoph Wanner, Katy G. Wilkens, Sophia Zoungas, Jonathan C. Craig, David J. Tunnicliffe, Marcello Tonelli, Michael Cheung, Amy Earley, Ian H. de Boer

Bibliographic record

VenueKidney International · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersInternational Society of Nephrology
KeywordsMedicineGuidelineKidney diseaseIntensive care medicineDiabetes mellitusExecutive summaryDiseaseClinical PracticeInternal medicinePhysical therapyPathologyEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) 2022 Clinical Practice Guideline for Diabetes Management in Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD) represents a focused update of the KDIGO 2020 guideline on the topic. The guideline targets a broad audience of clinicians treating people with diabetes and CKD. Topic areas for which recommendations are updated based on new evidence include Chapter 1: Comprehensive care in patients with diabetes and CKD and Chapter 4: Glucose-lowering therapies in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and CKD. The content of previous chapters on Glycemic monitoring and targets in patients with diabetes and CKD (Chapter 2), Lifestyle interventions in patients with diabetes and CKD (Chapter 3), and Approaches to management of patients with diabetes and CKD (Chapter 5) has been deemed current and was not changed. This guideline update was developed according to an explicit process of evidence review and appraisal. Treatment approaches and guideline recommendations are based on systematic reviews of relevant studies and appraisal of the quality of the evidence, and the strength of recommendations followed the "Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation" (GRADE) approach. Limitations of the evidence are discussed, and areas for which additional research is needed are presented.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.077
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.111

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.077
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0080.010
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0040.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0330.030

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.334 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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

Citations268
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueKidney InternationalSame topicDiabetes Treatment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207