MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2548885205 · doi:10.1111/ctr.12863

Impact of acute kidney injury following liver transplantation on long‐term outcomes

2016· article· en· W2548885205 on OpenAlexaff
Emilie Trinh, Ahsan Alam, Jean Tchervenkov, Marcelo Cantarovich

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Transplantation · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLiver Disease and Transplantation
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAcute kidney injuryKidney diseaseInternal medicineIncidence (geometry)CreatinineProportional hazards modelCalcineurinLiver transplantationTransplantationCohortRenal functionKidney transplantationStage (stratigraphy)Gastroenterology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The incidence of acute kidney injury (AKI) after liver transplantation (LTx) ranges from 17% to 94%. AKI is associated with prolonged hospitalization and increased early mortality. In our cohort study, we examined the impact of AKI on long-term patient survival and on the incidence of stage 4-5 chronic kidney disease (CKD). METHODS: We studied 491 LTx recipients at a single center between 1990 and 2012. We identified 278 pts (56.6%) with AKI defined as either an increase in serum creatinine (SCr) ≥26.5 μmol/L within 48 hour or elevation in SCr 1.5× baseline within 7 days (KDIGO criteria). RESULTS: In a multivariable Cox proportional hazards model, survival was worse in patients with AKI (HR: 1.41, 95% CI 1.03-1.92). Severe (stage 3) AKI was associated with worse patient survival (HR: 2.29, 95% CI 1.46-3.58). The risk of developing stage 4-5 CKD was also higher in patients with AKI (17.5% vs 9.1%) with a HR of 2.39 (95% CI 1.27-4.47). Delaying initiation of calcineurin inhibitors >48H was not associated with a decreased risk of CKD. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that AKI after LTx is associated with poor long-term outcomes, including worse survival and higher incidence of CKD stage 4-5. Strategies to prevent and manage LTx patients with AKI need to be developed.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.710

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.411
Teacher spread0.359 · 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.

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

Citations44
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical TransplantationSame topicLiver Disease and TransplantationFrench-language works237,207