MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386369046 · doi:10.18103/mra.v11i8.4222

Conservative Kidney Management and kidney Supportive Care: Essential Treatments for Kidney Failure

2023· article· en· W4386369046 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

VenueMedical Research Archives · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDialysis and Renal Disease Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineConservative managementIntensive care medicineKidneyNauseaVomitingQuality of life (healthcare)Kidney diseaseInternal medicineSurgeryNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Kidney supportive care (KSC) and conservative kidney management (CKM) are essential treatments for kidney failure (KF) but are nonexistent, poorly developed, and/or poorly integrated with kidney care across low-, middle-, and high-income countries. This article reviews the updated definitions and evidence for KSC and CKM and discusses who will most benefit from these treatments. Conservative kidney management involves highly individualized active treatment that comes with its own set of recommendations that focus predominantly on patient-specific goals and health-related quality of life. The recommendations for managing the complications of kidney failure and the symptoms of pain, restless legs, uremic pruritus, nausea and vomiting, poor sleep and fatigue, and breathlessness in people receiving CKM are reviewed. Additional considerations for delivering CKM in low resource settings are discussed.

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)0.005
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.516
Threshold uncertainty score0.832

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.344 · 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