AKI and Long-Term Risk for Cardiovascular Events and Mortality
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AKI associates with increased long-term risk of mortality, but the prognostic significance of AKI in terms of long-term cardiovascular disease remains unconfirmed. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess whether AKI associates with long-term cardiovascular disease. We included cohort studies that examined adults with and without AKI and reported a multivariable-adjusted relative risk (RR) for the association between AKI and cardiovascular mortality, major cardiovascular events, and disease-specific events: congestive heart failure, acute myocardial infarction, and stroke. Twenty-five studies involving 254,408 adults (55,150 with AKI) were included. AKI associated with an 86% and a 38% increased risk of cardiovascular mortality and major cardiovascular events, respectively ([RR 1.86; 95% confidence interval (95% CI), 1.72 to 2.01] and [RR 1.38; 95% CI, 1.23 to 1.55], respectively). For disease-specific events, AKI associated with a 58% increased risk of heart failure (RR 1.58; 95% CI, 1.46 to 1.72) and a 40% increased risk of acute myocardial infarction (RR 1.40; 95% CI, 1.23 to 1.59). The elevated risk of heart failure and acute myocardial infarction persisted in subgroup analyses on the basis of AKI severity and the proportion of adults with baseline ischemic heart disease. Finally, AKI was associated with a 15% increased risk of stroke (RR 1.15; 95% CI, 1.03 to 1.28). In conclusion, AKI associates with an elevated risk of cardiovascular mortality and major cardiovascular events, particularly heart failure and acute myocardial infarction.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it