Outcomes of patients with end‐stage renal disease (<scp>ESRD</scp>) under chronic hemodialysis requiring continuous renal replacement therapy (<scp>CRRT</scp>) and patients without <scp>ESRD</scp> in acute kidney injury requiring <scp>CRRT</scp>: A single‐center study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In most continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) studies, end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients were excluded and the outcomes of patients with ESRD treated with chronic hemodialysis (HD) were unknown. The purposes of this study were to (1) evaluate short-term patient survival and (2) compare the survival of conventional HD patients needing CRRT with the survival of non-ESRD patients in acute kidney injury (AKI) requiring CRRT. We evaluated adults (>18 years) requiring CRRT who were treated in the intensive care unit (ICU) at Kosin University Gospel Hospital from January 1, 2009 to December 31, 2010. A total of 100 (24 ESRD, 76 non-ESRD) patients underwent CRRT during the study period. Patients were divided into two major groups: patients with ESRD requiring chronic dialysis and patients without ESRD (non-ESRD) with AKI. We compared the survival of conventional HD patients requiring CRRT with the survival of non-ESRD patients in AKI requiring CRRT. For non-ESRD patients, the 90-day survival rate was 41.6%. For ESRD patients, the 90-day survival rate was 55.3%. Multivariate Cox proportional hazards analyses demonstrated that conventional HD was not a significant predictor of mortality (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.334, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.063-1.763, P = 0.196), after adjustment for age, gender, presence of sepsis, APACHE score, use of vasoactive drugs, number of organ failures, ultrafiltration rate, and arterial pH. The survival rates of non-ESRD and ESRD patients requiring CRRT did not differ; ESRD with conventional HD patients may be not a significant predictor of mortality.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".