MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4382344554 · doi:10.2215/cjn.0000000000000244

Treatment Guidelines for Hyponatremia

2023· review· en· W4382344554 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicElectrolyte and hormonal disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHyponatremiaMedicineLimitingIntensive care medicinePediatricsInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

International guidelines designed to minimize the risk of complications that can occur when correcting severe hyponatremia have been widely accepted for a decade. On the basis of the results of a recent large retrospective study of patients hospitalized with hyponatremia, it has been suggested that hyponatremia guidelines have gone too far in limiting the rate of rise of the serum sodium concentration; the need for therapeutic caution and frequent monitoring of the serum sodium concentration has been questioned. These assertions are reminiscent of a controversy that began many years ago. After reviewing the history of that controversy, the evidence supporting the guidelines, and the validity of data challenging them, we conclude that current safeguards should not be abandoned. To do so would be akin to discarding your umbrella because you remained dry in a rainstorm. The authors of this review, who represent 20 medical centers in nine countries, have all contributed significantly to the literature on the subject. We urge clinicians to continue to treat severe hyponatremia cautiously and to wait for better evidence before adopting less stringent therapeutic limits.

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 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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.737
Threshold uncertainty score0.897

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.009
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.355
GPT teacher head0.536
Teacher spread0.182 · 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