Impact of Electronic-Alerting of Acute Kidney Injury: Workgroup Statements from the 15 <sup>th</sup> ADQI Consensus Conference
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF THE REVIEW: Among hospitalized patients, acute kidney injury is common and associated with significant morbidity and risk for mortality. The use of electronic health records (EHR) for prediction and detection of this important clinical syndrome has grown in the past decade. The steering committee of the 15(th) Acute Dialysis Quality Initiative (ADQI) conference dedicated a workgroup with the task of identifying elements that may impact the course of events following Acute Kidney Injury (AKI) e-alert. SOURCES OF INFORMATION: Following an extensive, non-systematic literature search, we used a modified Delphi process to reach consensus regarding several aspects of the utilization of AKI e-alerts. FINDINGS: Topics discussed in this workgroup included progress in evidence base practices, the characteristics of an optimal e-alert, the measures of efficacy and effectiveness, and finally what responses would be considered best practices following AKI e-alerts. Authors concluded that the current evidence for e-alert system efficacy, although growing, remains insufficient. Technology and human-related factors were found to be crucial elements of any future investigation or implementation of such tools. The group also concluded that implementation of such systems should not be done without a vigorous plan to evaluate the efficacy and effectiveness of e-alerts. Efficacy and effectiveness of e-alerts should be measured by context-specific process and patient outcomes. Finally, the group made several suggestions regarding the clinical decision support that should be considered following successful e-alert implementation. LIMITATIONS: This paper reflects the findings of a non-systematic review and expert opinion. IMPLICATIONS: We recommend implementation of the findings of this workgroup report for use of AKI e-alerts.
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 | 0.232 | 0.366 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".