MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2162250236 · doi:10.2215/cjn.12691213

Timing of RRT Based on the Presence of Conventional Indications

2014· article· en· W2162250236 on OpenAlexaff
Suvi T. Vaara, Matti Reinikainen, Ron Wald, Sean M. Bagshaw, Ville Pettilä

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Kidney Injury Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaSt. Michael's Hospital
FundersNational Institutes of HealthPäivikki ja Sakari Sohlbergin SäätiöHelsingin ja Uudenmaan Sairaanhoitopiiri
KeywordsMedicineRenal replacement therapyOliguriaOdds ratioAnuriaAcute kidney injuryConfidence intervalInternal medicineIntensive care medicineRenal function

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: No data on the development of conventional indications for RRT (refractory acidosis, hyperkalemia, uremia, oliguria/anuria, and volume overload) related to timing of RRT exist. The prevalence of conventional indications among critically ill patients on RRT for AKI was evaluated, and patients manifesting indications versus patients without indications were compared in terms of crude and adjusted 90-day mortality. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: In this substudy of the Finnish Acute Kidney Injury study conducted in 2011 and 2012 in 17 intensive care units with 2901 patients, patients were classified as pre-emptive (no conventional indications) and classic (one or more indications) RRT recipients. Patients with classic RRT were divided into classic-urgent (RRT initiated ≤ 12 hours from manifesting indications) and classic-delayed (RRT >12 hours from first indication). Additionally, 2450 patients treated without RRT were matched to patients with pre-emptive RRT. RESULTS: Of 239 patients treated with RRT, 134 (56.1%; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 49.8% to 62.4%) fulfilled at least one conventional indication before commencing RRT. Crude 90-day mortality of 134 patients with classic RRT was 48.5% (95% CI, 40.0% to 57.0%), and it was 29.5% (95% CI, 20.8% to 38.2%) for the 105 patients with pre-emptive RRT. Classic RRT was associated with a higher risk for mortality (adjusted odds ratio, 2.05; 95% CI, 1.03 to 4.09). Forty-four patients with classic-delayed RRT showed higher crude mortality (68.2%; 95% CI, 54.4% to 82.0%) compared with patients with classic-urgent RRT, and this association persisted after adjustment for known confounders (odds ratio, 3.85; 95% CI, 1.48 to 10.22). Crude 90-day mortality of 67 1:1 matched patients with pre-emptive RRT was 26.9% (95% CI, 6.3% to 37.5%), and it was 49.3% (95% CI, 37.3% to 61.2%; P=0.01) for their non-RRT matches. CONCLUSIONS: Patients on RRT after one or more conventional indications had both higher crude and adjusted 90-day mortality compared with patients without conventional indications. These findings require confirmation in an adequately powered, multicenter, randomized controlled trial.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.089
GPT teacher head0.425
Teacher spread0.336 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations86
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Journal of the American Society of NephrologySame topicAcute Kidney Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207