MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399557068 · doi:10.1053/j.jrn.2024.05.008

The Management of Dietary Fiber Intake in Children With Chronic Kidney Disease – Clinical Practice Recommendations From the Pediatric Renal Nutrition Taskforce

2024· article· en· W4399557068 on OpenAlexaff
An Desloovere, Nonnie Polderman, José Renken‐Terhaerdt, Vanessa Shaw, Caroline Anderson, Larry A. Greenbaum, Christina L. Nelms, Leila Qizalbash, Stella Stabouli, Jetta Tuokkola, Bradley A. Warady, Johan Vande Walle, Fabio Paglialonga, Rukshana Shroff, Evelien Snauwaert

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Renal Nutrition · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNutrition and Health in Aging
Canadian institutionsBC Children's Hospital
FundersNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchEuropean Rare Kidney Disease Reference NetworkDepartment of Health and Social CareVitaflo
KeywordsMedicineKidney diseaseDietary fiberClinical PracticeDietary managementIntensive care medicineDiseaseKidneyInternal medicineEnvironmental healthFamily medicineFood science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The benefits of dietary fiber are widely accepted. Nevertheless, a substantial proportion of children fail to meet the recommended intake of dietary fiber. Achieving adequate fiber intake is especially challenging in children with chronic kidney disease (CKD). An international team of pediatric renal dietitians and pediatric nephrologists from the Pediatric Renal Nutrition Taskforce (PRNT) has developed clinical practice recommendations (CPRs) for the dietary intake of fiber in children and adolescents with CKD. In this CPR paper, we propose a definition of fiber, provide advice on the requirements and assessment of fiber intake, and offer practical guidance on optimizing dietary fiber intake in children with CKD. In addition, given the paucity of available evidence and to achieve consensus from international experts, a Delphi survey was performed in which all the clinical practice recommendations were reviewed.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.090

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.336 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Renal NutritionSame topicNutrition and Health in AgingFrench-language works237,207