Biomarkers Predict Progression of Acute Kidney Injury after Cardiac Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Being able to predict whether AKI will progress could improve monitoring and care, guide patient counseling, and assist with enrollment into trials of AKI treatment. Using samples from the Translational Research Investigating Biomarker Endpoints in AKI study (TRIBE-AKI), we evaluated whether kidney injury biomarkers measured at the time of first clinical diagnosis of early AKI after cardiac surgery can forecast AKI severity. Biomarkers included urinary IL-18, urinary albumin to creatinine ratio (ACR), and urinary and plasma neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin (NGAL); each measurement was on the day of AKI diagnosis in 380 patients who developed at least AKI Network (AKIN) stage 1 AKI. The primary end point (progression of AKI defined by worsening AKIN stage) occurred in 45 (11.8%) patients. Using multivariable logistic regression, we determined the risk of AKI progression. After adjustment for clinical predictors, compared with biomarker values in the lowest two quintiles, the highest quintiles of three biomarkers remained associated with AKI progression: IL-18 (odds ratio=3.0, 95% confidence interval=1.3-7.3), ACR (odds ratio=3.4, 95% confidence interval=1.3-9.1), and plasma NGAL (odds ratio=7.7, 95% confidence interval=2.6-22.5). Each biomarker improved risk classification compared with the clinical model alone, with plasma NGAL performing the best (category-free net reclassification improvement of 0.69, P<0.0001). In conclusion, biomarkers measured on the day of AKI diagnosis improve risk stratification and identify patients at higher risk for progression of AKI and worse patient outcomes.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".