MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396994687 · doi:10.1681/asn.20213210s1538c

Understanding Obesity Management in CKD Patients

2021· article· en· W4396994687 on OpenAlexaffabout
Michael Chiu, Kathy Koyle, Arsh Jain

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Society of Nephrology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPharmacology and Obesity Treatment
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineObesityIntensive care medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Obesity is a global epidemic that is directly and indirectly linked to progression of chronic kidney disease (CKD). Nephrologists' attitude towards obesity management is not understood. Methods: We surveyed 14 nephrologists practicing in an academic centre in London, Ontario, Canada to investigate their perception and management of obesity. Then we performed a retrospective chart review of patients in a CKD clinic with obesity (BMI >30kg/m2). Ten follow-up visits were randomly selected for each nephrologist between Jan-Dec 2019. Each chart was assessed for documentation of obesity and a management plan such as lifestyle counselling, pharmacologic intervention, or specialist referral. Results: There were 13 responses (93%). Responses from a 5-point Likert scale, agree and strongly agree, have been combined. All nephrologists agreed that obesity negatively impacts CKD patients. 92% reported that discussing obesity evokes a negative response and 39% thought patients want to discuss obesity. Interestingly, 0% of nephrologists thought patients know that obesity has effective treatments. 85% of nephrologists talked to their patients about obesity, but 0% felt that they had time to treat it. With regards to management, 54% of nephrologists were comfortable with non-pharmacologic treatment, but only one was comfortable with pharmacologic treatments. 85% of respondents felt that patients should be referred to a specialist. A total of 140 charts were reviewed with a mean age 66 years, weight 105 kg, and BMI 37 kg/m2. Only one chart had obesity as a clinical issue and documented a weight loss discussion using non-pharmacologic strategies. Conclusions: Our results suggest that obesity is rarely managed despite nephrologists' desire to treat it. This care gap can be addressed using robust Quality Improvement principles. Our centre will improve obesity management by developing a clinical handbook for nephrologists on how to efficiently address obesity with patients as well as a partnership and streamlined referral process to an obesity specialist. Funding: Clinical Revenue Support

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.061

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.263 · 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 designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Society of NephrologySame topicPharmacology and Obesity TreatmentFrench-language works237,207