MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412017605 · doi:10.1177/20543581251347165

Life Cycle Assessment: A Primer for Kidney Professionals

2025· article· en· W4412017605 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Saba Yousafzai, Rehan Sadiq, Kasun Hewage, Andrea J. MacNeill, Caroline Stigant

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Kidney Health and Disease · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicClimate Change and Health Impacts
Canadian institutionsIsland HealthUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusKelowna General Hospital
FundersBC Renal Agency
KeywordsLife-cycle assessmentSustainabilityMedicineHealth careEnvironmental impact assessmentEnvironmental resource managementEnvironmental science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The growing emphasis on low-carbon, sustainable health care systems is driving the integration of environmental sustainability into clinical practice and research. This shift necessitates clinician literacy in health care sustainability, particularly in methodologies for assessing environmental impacts. Objective: To introduce health care professionals to life cycle assessment (LCA) as a tool for evaluating environmental impacts in clinical contexts and to illustrate its application through a case study on hemodialysis therapies. Design: A qualitative assessment of LCA methodology, including its fundamental principles, stages, and applications in health care. Setting: Hemodialysis materials were collected from In-Centre and Home Dialysis units at Vancouver General Hospital. Patients/Sample/Participants: No patients are directly involved in this work; samples of unused hemodialysis materials were collected for process assessment. The target audience is health care professionals, particularly those involved in kidney care, who need to interpret LCA results for informed decision-making. Methods: Overview of LCA, an internationally standardized methodology that evaluates the environmental impacts of products and processes over their entire life cycle, is presented. The 4 stages of LCA, the key environmental impact categories it assesses, and guidelines for appropriate interpretation and use are explored. Results: Life cycle assessment provides numerous midpoint data, mechanisms by which damages occur to endpoints, including human health and environments. The case study comparing home versus in-center hemodialysis demonstrates how LCA findings can inform decision-making in kidney care. Limitations: The interpretation of LCA results requires an understanding of its methodology and limitations. The accuracy of LCA outcomes depends on the quality and scope of data used in the assessment. Conclusions: As LCA is increasingly applied in clinical settings, health care professionals must develop the skills to critically evaluate and apply its findings. This primer equips kidney care professionals with essential knowledge of LCA methodology, supporting the integration of environmental sustainability into clinical practice. Trial Registration: Not applicable.

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)0.035
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.051
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: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.186

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0350.051
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0070.007
Science and technology studies0.0030.011
Scholarly communication0.0100.016
Open science0.0060.009
Research integrity0.0070.015
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.005

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 head0.359
Teacher spread0.329 · 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
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

Citations4
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Kidney Health and DiseaseSame topicClimate Change and Health ImpactsFrench-language works237,207