MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392616572 · doi:10.1016/j.gimo.2024.101021

O28: The utility of genetic testing in adults with chronic kidney disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis

2024· review· en· W4392616572 on OpenAlexaff
Clara Schott, Victoria Lebedeva, Cambrie Taylor, Saeed Abumelha, Pavel S Roshanov, Dervla M. Connaughton

Bibliographic record

VenueGenetics in Medicine Open · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBiomedical Ethics and Regulation
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences CentreWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMeta-analysisKidney diseaseDiseaseGenetic testingMedicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD) is a prevalent condition affecting 1 in 10 individuals worldwide. Genetic causes of CKD are diverse, and although individually rare, account for 10-20% of CKD cases. This may be an underestimation since genetic kidney disease (GKD) is difficult to diagnose using traditional diagnostic methods. Genetic testing in adults largely includes phenotypic and comprehensive gene panels and/or exome and genome sequencing. Through detection of mutations in genes known to cause CKD, these testing strategies can confirm GKD.

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)0.003
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: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.564
Threshold uncertainty score0.752

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.169
GPT teacher head0.429
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenetics in Medicine OpenSame topicBiomedical Ethics and RegulationFrench-language works237,207