MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403286179 · doi:10.1016/j.xkme.2024.100913

Nephroprotective Effects of Cilastatin in People at Risk of Acute Kidney Injury: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

2024· review· en· W4403286179 on OpenAlex
Dilaram Acharya, Fanar Ghanim, Tyrone G. Harrison, Tayler Scory, Nusrat Shommu, Paul E. Ronksley, Meghan J. Elliott, David Collister, Neesh Pannu, Matthew T. James

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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueKidney Medicine · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Kidney Injury Research
Canadian institutionsLibin Cardiovascular Institute of AlbertaUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of Calgary
FundersFaculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of AlbertaCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCumming School of Medicine, University of CalgaryUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of Calgary
KeywordsMedicineCilastatinObservational studyMeta-analysisRandomized controlled trialImipenemInternal medicineSystematic reviewMEDLINEIntensive care medicineAntibioticsAntibiotic resistanceBiologyMicrobiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rationale & Objective: Cilastatin is an inhibitor of drug metabolism in the proximal tubule that demonstrates nephroprotective effects in animals. It has been used in humans in combination with the antibiotic imipenem to block imipenem's renal metabolism. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the nephroprotective effects of cilastatin in humans. Study Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis of observational (comparative effectiveness) studies or randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Setting & Study Populations: People of any age at risk of acute kidney injury (AKI). Selection Criteria for Studies: We systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials registry from database inception to November 2023 for observational studies or RCTs that compared kidney outcomes among groups treated with cilastatin, either alone or as combination imipenem-cilastatin, versus an inactive or active control group not treated with cilastatin. Data Extraction: Two reviewers independently evaluated studies for inclusion and risk of bias. Analytical Approach: statistic. Results: = 0%). The overall certainty of the evidence was low due to heterogeneity of the results, high risk of bias, and indirectness among the identified studies. Limitations: Clinical and statistical heterogeneity could not be fully explained due to a limited number of studies. Conclusions: Patients treated with imipenem-cilastatin developed AKI less frequently and had lower serum creatinine concentration following treatment than control groups or those who had received comparator antibiotics. Larger clinical trials with less risk of detection bias due to lack of allocation concealment and blinding are needed to establish the efficacy of cilastatin for AKI prevention.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.415
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0300.003
Bibliometrics0.0030.008
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.394
Teacher spread0.354 · 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