MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Supplementary Material for: Comparison of Different Selection Strategies for Tolvaptan Eligibility among Autosomal Dominant Polycystic Kidney Disease Patients

2019· dataset· en· W6977525504 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2019
Typedataset
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAir Quality Monitoring and Forecasting
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutosomal dominant polycystic kidney diseaseTolvaptanRenal functionPolycystic kidneyObservational studySelection (genetic algorithm)CohortPolycystic kidney disease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Tolvaptan can slow down renal function decline in autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease (­ADPKD). While there is consensus across international recommendations that the drug should only be used in patients with high risk of rapid progression, identification criteria for rapid progression vary. Here, we investigated different assessment strategies using a real-life ADPKD cohort. Methods: Observational retrospective cohort analysis. The study included 131 ADPKD patients aged 19–78 years who were referred to the Hannover Medical School outpatient clinic for evaluation of tolvaptan treatment. Six different assessment strategies for tolvaptan eligibility were tested for each patient. Comparative analysis for different assessments was performed in the total study population, the subpopulation with available computed tomography/magnetic resonance imaging data, and the genotyped subpopulation. Results: Comparing 6 assessment strategies revealed strong variations in the individual selection processes resulting in treatment recommendations for 14.5–64.9% of patients. The highest patient number was selected by the Scottish and the lowest by the Japanese approach. Few patients had positive recommendations by all 6 systems, but strong congruency was observed between the Scottish, U.K. and Canadian patient selection. The lowest number of overlapping patients was found between the Japanese and the ERA-EDTA selection. Important discrepancies were also found between the ERA-EDTA and the U.S. system due to different emphases on parameters of kidney function versus kidney volume. Limitations of the study included the restricted sample size, heterogeneity in parameter availability and lack of outcome data. Conclusions: The study draws attention to important discrepancies between different decision algorithms for tolvaptan eligibility in ADPKD patients.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.032
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.758
Threshold uncertainty score0.345

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.032
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.7580.148

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 head0.318
Teacher spread0.277 · 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.

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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFigshareSame topicAir Quality Monitoring and ForecastingFrench-language works237,207