A systematic review and meta-analysis of low-dose dopamine for renal dysfunction, and, A simulation study to evaluate the ratio of means as a new method for analyzing continuous variables in meta-analyses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Systematic review and meta-analysis of 61 trials randomizing 3359 patients to low-dose dopamine ( le;5 micrograms/kg body weight/minute) in patients with or at risk for acute renal failure shows that dopamine's effect on clinical outcomes including mortality (relative risk 0.96[95%ClI 0.76-1.15]), need for dialysis (relative risk 0.93[95%CI 0.90-1.41]), or adverse events (relative risk 1.13[95%CI 0.90-1.41]) are not statistically significant. Using a ratio of means method demonstrates that dopamine produced small improvements in renal physiological parameters only on day 1 of therapy including a 24%[95%CI 14-35%] increase in urine output, 4%[95%CI 1-7%] decrease in serum creatinine, and 6%[95%CI 1-11%] increase in creatinine clearance. A simulation study using a range of parameters commonly encountered in meta-analyses shows that the performance characteristics in terms of bias, coverage and statistical power were comparable between the traditionally-used weighted and standardized mean difference methods and the novel ratio of means method to analyze continuous outcomes.
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 | 0.036 | 0.102 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.037 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".