An expert discussion on the atypical hemolytic uremic syndrome nomenclature—identifying a road map to precision: a report of a National Kidney Foundation Working Group
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The term atypical hemolytic uremic syndrome has been in use since the mid-1970s. It was initially used to describe the familial or sporadic form of hemolytic uremic syndrome as opposed to the epidemic, typical form of the disease. Over time, the atypical hemolytic uremic syndrome term has evolved into being used to refer to anything that is not Shiga toxin-associated hemolytic uremic syndrome. The term describes a heterogeneous group of diseases of disparate causes, a circumstance that makes defining disease-specific natural history and/or targeted treatment approaches challenging. A working group of specialty-specific experts in the thrombotic microangiopathies was convened to review the validity of this broad term in an era of swiftly advancing science and targeted therapeutics. A Delphi approach was used to define and interrogate some of the key issues related to the atypical hemolytic uremic syndrome nomenclature.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.115 | 0.140 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.028 | 0.035 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".