Li-2021-popPK-Vanco-ARC.pdf
| Assessment Criterion | AI Analysis | AI Judgment | Issues |
|---|---|---|---|
|
S1: How representative was the exposed cohort?
cs_s1
|
Raw response parsing failed. Original content: API_ERROR: OpenAI_ChatGPT HTTP Error 429: {
"error": {
"message": "Rate limit reached for gpt-4.1 in organization org-sBw3NuTXm9BWzZZ28cNzByY8 on tokens per min (TPM): Limit 30000, Used 30...
|
Error: Parse Failure | |
|
S2: How was the non-exposed cohort selected?
cs_s2
|
Raw response parsing failed. Original content: {
"judgment": "star awarded",
"scoring_rationale": "The study explicitly states that both the exposed (ARC group) and non-exposed (normal renal function group) cohorts were drawn from the same sou...
|
no | |
|
S3: How was exposure ascertained?
cs_s3
|
The study explicitly states that exposure data (including vancomycin administration and relevant clinical/laboratory variables) were 'retrospectively collected from the electronic medical records of the hospital information system.' This constitutes ascertainment of exposure via secure record, which meets the highest standard for this NOS item. There is no ambiguity or missing information regarding the source of exposure data.
|
star awarded | |
|
S4: Was the outcome of interest not present at the start of the study?
cs_s4
|
Raw response parsing failed. Original content: {
"judgment": "no star awarded",
"scoring_rationale": "The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale S4 criterion requires explicit evidence that the outcome of interest was not present at the start of the study. Th...
|
no | |
|
C1: Were the cohorts comparable on the basis of design or analysis, controlling for confounders?
cs_c1
|
Raw response parsing failed. Original content: {
"judgment": "no star awarded",
"scoring_rationale": "The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale Comparability criterion requires explicit documentation that the cohorts were comparable on the basis of design or...
|
no | |
|
O1: How was the outcome assessed?
cs_o1
|
Raw response parsing failed. Original content: {
"judgment": "star awarded",
"scoring_rationale": "The study provides explicit and detailed information on how the outcome (vancomycin blood concentration) was assessed. It states that 'Whole blo...
|
no | |
|
O2: Was the follow-up long enough for outcomes to occur?
cs_o2
|
The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale criterion O2 requires that the follow-up duration be clearly stated and sufficient for the outcome of interest to occur. A systematic search of the provided text reveals no explicit statement of the total follow-up duration for participants, nor any indication of the average or minimum follow-up time. The only relevant information is the inclusion criterion that patients must have received vancomycin 'for at least 3 days' (P2.L58), but this does not constitute a clearly stated or sufficient follow-up period for outcome assessment in a cohort study. There is no mention of the total observation period for each participant, nor any discussion of whether this duration is adequate for the outcomes of interest to occur. Therefore, the evidence is insufficient to award a star.
|
no star awarded | |
|
O3: Was the follow-up adequate (i.e., completeness)?
cs_o3
|
Raw response parsing failed. Original content: {
"judgment": "no star awarded",
"scoring_rationale": "The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) criterion O3 requires explicit documentation of follow-up adequacy, such as the proportion of subjects follo...
|
no |