MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2286158066 · doi:10.1186/s40697-016-0099-4

Utilizing Electronic Health Records to Predict Acute Kidney Injury Risk and Outcomes: Workgroup Statements from the 15 <sup>th</sup> ADQI Consensus Conference

2016· review· en· W2286158066 on OpenAlexaff
Scott M. Sutherland, Lakhmir S. Chawla, Sandra L. Kane‐Gill, Raymond K. Hsu, Andrew A. Kramer, Stuart L. Goldstein, John A. Kellum, Claudio Ronco, Sean M. Bagshaw

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Kidney Health and Disease · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Kidney Injury Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWorkgroupMedicineAcute kidney injuryHealth recordsRisk assessmentIntensive care medicineMedical emergencyFamily medicineInternal medicineHealth careComputer securityLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The data contained within the electronic health record (EHR) is "big" from the standpoint of volume, velocity, and variety. These circumstances and the pervasive trend towards EHR adoption have sparked interest in applying big data predictive analytic techniques to EHR data. Acute kidney injury (AKI) is a condition well suited to prediction and risk forecasting; not only does the consensus definition for AKI allow temporal anchoring of events, but no treatments exist once AKI develops, underscoring the importance of early identification and prevention. The Acute Dialysis Quality Initiative (ADQI) convened a group of key opinion leaders and stakeholders to consider how best to approach AKI research and care in the "Big Data" era. This manuscript addresses the core elements of AKI risk prediction and outlines potential pathways and processes. We describe AKI prediction targets, feature selection, model development, and data display.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.032
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.375
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.032
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.402
Teacher spread0.348 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations111
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Kidney Health and DiseaseSame topicAcute Kidney Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207