CT Angiography for Intracerebral Hemorrhage Does Not Increase Risk of Acute Nephropathy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: CT angiography (CTA) is receiving increased attention in intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) for its role in ruling out vascular abnormalities and potentially predicting ongoing bleeding. Its use is limited by the concern for contrast induced nephropathy (CIN); however, the magnitude of this risk is not known. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected cohort of consecutive patients with ICH presenting to a single tertiary care hospital from 2002 to 2007. Demographic, clinical, and radiographic data were prospectively collected for all patients. Laboratory data and clinical course over the first 48 hours were retrospectively reviewed. Acute nephropathy was defined as any rise in creatinine of >25% or >0.5 mg/dL, such that the highest creatinine value was above 1.5 mg/dL. RESULTS: 539 patients presented during the study period and had at least 2 creatinine measurements. 348 (65%) received a CTA. Acute nephropathy developed in 6% of patients who received a CTA and in 10% of those who did not (P=0.1). Risk of nephropathy was 14% in those receiving no contrast (130 patients), 5% in those receiving 1 contrast study (124 patients), and 6% in those receiving >1 contrast study (244 patients). Neither CTA nor any use of contrast predicted nephropathy in univariate or multivariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS: The risk of acute nephropathy after ICH was not increased by use of CTA. Studies of CIN that do not include a control group may overestimate the influence of contrast. Patients with ICH appear to have an 8% risk of developing "Hospital-Acquired Nephropathy."
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".