Predicting Acute Renal Failure after Cardiac Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Different scores to predict acute kidney injury after cardiac surgery have been developed recently. The purpose of this study was to validate externally two clinical scores developed at Cleveland and Toronto. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: A retrospective analysis was conducted of a prospectively maintained database of all cardiac surgeries performed during a 5-yr period (2002 to 2006) at a University Hospital in Madrid, Spain. Acute kidney injury was defined as the need for renal replacement therapy. For evaluation of the performance of both models, discrimination and calibration were measured. RESULTS: Frequency of acute kidney injury after cardiac surgery was 3.7% in the cohort used to validate the Cleveland score and 3.8% in the cohort used to validate the Toronto score. Discrimination of both models was excellent, with values for the areas under the receiving operator characteristics curves of 0.86 (95% confidence interval 0.81 to 0.9) and 0.82 (95% confidence interval 0.76 to 0.87), respectively. Calibration was poor, with underestimation of the risk for acute kidney injury except for patients within the very-low-risk category. The performance of both models clearly improved after recalibration. CONCLUSIONS: Both models were found to be very useful to discriminate between patients who will and will not develop acute kidney injury after cardiac surgery; however, before using the scores to estimate risk probabilities at a specific center, recalibration may be needed.
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 | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".