Automated Author ProfileLemasle, Léa
Lemasle, Léa
Current S-Index
Sum of Dataset Indices for all datasets
Average Dataset Index per Dataset
Average Dataset Index per dataset
Total Datasets
Total datasets for this author
Average FAIR Score
Average FAIR Score per dataset
Total Citations
Total citations to the author's datasets
Total Mentions
Total mentions of the author's datasets
S-Index Interpretation
The S-Index (Sharing Index) is a comprehensive metric that represents the cumulative impact of all your datasets. It is calculated as the sum of Dataset Index scores across all your claimed datasets.
What it means:
- A higher S-index indicates greater overall impact of your datasets relative to typical datasets in their fields of research
- The S-Index grows as you add more datasets or as existing datasets gain more citations and mentions
- It provides a single number to track your research data impact over time
Current S-Index: 0.7 (sum of 2 datasets Dataset Index scores)
More information here.
S-Index Over Time
Cumulative Citations Over Time
Cumulative Mentions Over Time
Datasets
Purpose: Methods used to explore biomarkers for acute kidney injury (AKI) might have a major impact on the results and the use of these biomarkers. We evaluated the methods used to investigate biomarkers of AKI. Materials and methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed using a computerized search of the MEDLINE and the EMBASE databases (PROSPERO CRD42017059618). Articles reporting biomarker’s performance to diagnose AKI were included. The outcome included a description of the methods used to assess the performance of biomarkers to diagnose AKI. Results: Among the 295 included studies, assessment of biomarkers was the primary endpoint in 284 with sample size calculation in only 8% of cases. Eighty-five percent of the studies summarized the performance of biomarkers with receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves; however, 74 studies (25%) did not provide the threshold, sensibility or specificity. A total of 176 studies evaluated more than one biomarker, and only 25% combined biomarkers to increase diagnostic performance. We determined that the definition of AKI and study design impacted the diagnostic performance using uNGAL (urinary neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin) as an example. Major publication bias was identified. Conclusions: Most articles that reported biomarkers of AKI performance present methodological weaknesses. Basic rules should be provided to increase the quality of reporting in this area.
Authors
- Codorniu, Anaïs ;
- Lemasle, Léa ;
- Legrand, Matthieu ;
- Blet, Alice ;
- Mebazaa, Alexandre ;
- Gayat, Etienne
Purpose: Methods used to explore biomarkers for acute kidney injury (AKI) might have a major impact on the results and the use of these biomarkers. We evaluated the methods used to investigate biomarkers of AKI. Materials and methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed using a computerized search of the MEDLINE and the EMBASE databases (PROSPERO CRD42017059618). Articles reporting biomarker’s performance to diagnose AKI were included. The outcome included a description of the methods used to assess the performance of biomarkers to diagnose AKI. Results: Among the 295 included studies, assessment of biomarkers was the primary endpoint in 284 with sample size calculation in only 8% of cases. Eighty-five percent of the studies summarized the performance of biomarkers with receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves; however, 74 studies (25%) did not provide the threshold, sensibility or specificity. A total of 176 studies evaluated more than one biomarker, and only 25% combined biomarkers to increase diagnostic performance. We determined that the definition of AKI and study design impacted the diagnostic performance using uNGAL (urinary neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin) as an example. Major publication bias was identified. Conclusions: Most articles that reported biomarkers of AKI performance present methodological weaknesses. Basic rules should be provided to increase the quality of reporting in this area.
Authors
- Codorniu, Anaïs ;
- Lemasle, Léa ;
- Legrand, Matthieu ;
- Blet, Alice ;
- Mebazaa, Alexandre ;
- Gayat, Etienne