MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1965534247 · doi:10.1186/cc6823

The histopathology of septic acute kidney injury: a systematic review

2008· review· en· W1965534247 on OpenAlexaff
Christoph Langenberg, Sean M. Bagshaw, Clive N. May, Rinaldo Bellomo

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Care · 2008
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Kidney Injury Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAcute kidney injuryHistopathologyIntensive care medicinePathologyEmergency medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Sepsis is the most common trigger of acute kidney injury (AKI) in critically ill patients; understanding the structural changes associated with its occurrence is therefore important. Accordingly, we systematically reviewed the literature to assess current knowledge on the histopathology of septic AKI. METHODS: A systematic review of the MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINHAL databases and bibliographies of the retrieved articles was performed for all studies describing kidney histopathology in septic AKI. RESULTS: We found six studies reporting the histopathology of septic AKI for a total of only 184 patients. Among these patients, only 26 (22%) had features suggestive of acute tubular necrosis (ATN). We found four primate studies. In these, seven out of 19 (37%) cases showed features of ATN. We also found 13 rodent studies of septic AKI. In total, 23% showed evidence of ATN. In two additional studies performed in a dog model and a sheep model there was no evidence of ATN on histopathologic examination. Overall, when ATN was absent, studies reported a wide variety of kidney morphologic changes in septic AKI - ranging from normal (in most cases) to marked cortical tubular necrosis. CONCLUSION: There are no consistent renal histopathological changes in human or experimental septic AKI. The majority of studies reported normal histology or only mild, nonspecific changes. ATN was relatively uncommon.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.002
Bibliometrics0.0150.018
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.453
Teacher spread0.396 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations320
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical CareSame topicAcute Kidney Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207