Definition and classification of Cardio-Renal Syndromes: workgroup statements from the 7th ADQI Consensus Conference
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Both cardiac and renal diseases are extremely common in the population and frequently coexist. Cardiac disease is often associated with worsening renal function and vice versa. The coexistence of cardiac and renal disease significantly increases mortality, morbidity and complexity and cost of care [1,2]. Syndromes describing the interaction between the heart and the kidney are recognized, but have never been clearly defined and classified. Several different definitions have been proposed [1,3–8] but none have been published as a result of a consensus process. As a result of the lack of consensus definition and classification, there is limited appreciation of its epidemiology, no standardized diagnostic criteria and no uniform approaches to prevention and treatment. Furthermore, treatment is often fragmented, single organ centred, with perceived competing priorities and specialty care is not necessarily integrated amongst relevant specialties. As a result, timing and appropriateness of care may suffer. In response to these issues, a consensus conference was organized under the auspices of the Acute Dialysis Quality Initiative (ADQI) by bringing together key opinion leaders and experts in the fields of nephrology, critical care, cardiac surgery, cardiology and epidemiology. A meeting was held in Venice, Italy from September 3 to 6, 2008. In this manuscript, we present the consensus document and the methodology by which a consensus definition and classification system for Cardio-Renal Syndromes was reached [9].
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it