MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6920753637 · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.22608871

Additional file 1 of Changing epidemiology of acute kidney injury in critically ill patients with COVID-19: a prospective cohort

2023· article· en· W6920753637 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicLaser Material Processing Techniques
Canadian institutionsSt. Thomas Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAcute kidney injuryRenal replacement therapyProspective cohort studyCohortCreatinineKidney diseaseEpidemiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Additional file 1: Figure S1: Number of patients admitted to ICU, patients with acute kidney injury, and patients who received kidney replacement therapy by month of admission. Figure S2: Proportions of patients with acute kidney injury and patients who received kidney replacement therapy by month of admission. Table S1: Baseline characteristics, laboratory biomarkers, treatment and outcomes by wave, AKI status and AKI staging. Table S2: Unadjusted associations between demographic characteristics and diagnosis of acute kidney injury for all patients and stratified by wave. Table S3: Indications for KRT between wave 1 and 2. Table S4: Adjusted associations between demographic characteristics and kidney replacement therapy for all patients and stratified by wave. Table S5: Comparison of daily cumulative fluid balance (%) by waves and sources of admission. Table S6: Unadjusted associations between COVID-19 treatments and AKI or KRT for all patients and stratified by wave. Table S7: Treatment and fluid balance for AKI or KRT patients only, stratified by day of diagnosis or KRT and wave of the pandemic. Table S8: Changes in serum creatinine and GFR values in alive patients from baseline, hospital discharge, and 90 days after hospital discharge Table S9: Associations between AKI, KRT and 24-hour cumulative fluid balance.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.742
Threshold uncertainty score0.992

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.7420.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreDataset

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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFigshareSame topicLaser Material Processing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207