Amyloidoses in Onco-Nephrology Practice: A Multidisciplinary Case-Based Conference Report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction and Objective: Amyloidoses are a heterogeneous group of disorders resulting from deposition of amyloid fibrils into extracellular tissues. While the kidneys are one of the most frequent sites of amyloid deposition, amyloid deposits can also affect a wide range of organ systems, including the heart, liver, gastrointestinal tract, and peripheral nerves. The prognosis of amyloidosis, especially with cardiac involvement, remains poor; however, a collaborative approach applying new tools for diagnosis and management may improve outcomes. In September 2021, the Canadian Onco-Nephrology Interest Group hosted a symposium to discuss diagnostic challenges and recent advances in the management of amyloidosis from the perspectives of the nephrologist, cardiologist, and onco-hematologist. Methods and Sources of Information: Through structured presentations, the group discussed a series of cases highlighting the varied clinical presentations of amyloidoses affecting the kidney and heart. Expert opinions, clinical trial findings, and publication summaries were used to illustrate patient-related and treatment-related considerations in the diagnosis and management of amyloidoses. Key findings: (1) Overview of the clinical presentation of amyloidoses and the role of specialists in performing timely and accurate diagnostic workup; (2) review of best practices for multidisciplinary management of amyloidosis, including prognostic variables and determinants of treatment response; and (3) update on new and emerging treatments in the management of light chain and amyloid transthyretin amyloidoses. Limitations: This conference featured multidisciplinary discussion of cases, and learning points reflect the assessments by the involved experts/authors. Implications: Identification and management of amyloidoses can be facilitated with a multidisciplinary approach and higher index of suspicion from cardiologists, nephrologists, and hemato-oncologists. Increased awareness of clinical presentations and diagnostic algorithms for amyloidosis subtyping will lead to more timely interventions and improved clinical outcomes.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".