Oliguria, volume overload, and loop diuretics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Acute kidney injury (AKI) is commonly and increasingly encountered in patients with critical illness. In the past, epidemiologic studies have consistently found that oliguria further increases the risk of death from AKI. Compared with patients outside the intensive care unit (ICU), critically ill patients are more likely to have volume overload as a result of impaired solute and water excretion. Recently, broad changes have occurred in ICU practice, such as early goal-directed therapy in sepsis, which may further compound volume overload in the ICU patient with oliguric AKI. Evidence has also emerged to suggest that a positive fluid accumulation in ICU patients can unfavorably affect outcome. Thus, the ICU patient with oliguric AKI presents a dilemma with limited therapeutic options. These would include optimization of systemic hemodynamics, added fluid therapy, administration of loop diuretics, or finally, the initiation of renal replacement therapy. Interestingly, recent survey data and observational studies indicate that a majority of intensivists use loop diuretics, specifically furosemide, at some point during the course of illness in patients with AKI. Paradoxically, loop diuretics have been found in several clinical studies of patients with AKI to be potentially detrimental or, at the least, lack effectiveness for improving clinical outcomes. This contradiction between clinical practice and available evidence would suggest there is equipoise and need for higher-quality evidence to better characterize the role of loop diuretics in ICU patients with AKI.
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 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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 teacher head, 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".