Biomarkers for prediction of renal replacement therapy in acute kidney injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Acute kidney injury (AKI) frequently occurs in critically ill patients and often precipitates use of renal replacement therapy (RRT). However, the ideal circumstances for whether and when to start RRT remain unclear. We performed evidence synthesis of the available literature to evaluate the value of biomarkers to predict receipt of RRT for AKI. METHODS: We conducted a PRISMA-guided systematic review and meta-analysis including all trials evaluating biomarker performance for prediction of RRT in AKI. A systematic search was applied in MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL databases from inception to September 2017. All studies reporting an area under the curve (AUC) for a biomarker to predict initiation of RRT were included. RESULTS: Sixty-three studies comprising 15,928 critically ill patients (median per study 122.5 [31-1439]) met eligibility. Forty-one studies evaluating 13 different biomarkers were included. Of these biomarkers, neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin (NGAL) had the largest body of evidence. The pooled AUCs for urine and blood NGAL were 0.720 (95% CI 0.638-0.803) and 0.755 (0.706-0.803), respectively. Blood creatinine and cystatin C had pooled AUCs of 0.764 (0.732-0.796) and 0.768 (0.729-0.807), respectively. For urine biomarkers, interleukin-18, cystatin C, and the product of tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinase-2 and insulin growth factor binding protein-7 showed pooled AUCs of 0.668 (0.606-0.729), 0.722 (0.575-0.868), and 0.857 (0.789-0.925), respectively. CONCLUSION: Though several biomarkers showed promise and reasonable prediction of RRT use for critically ill patients with AKI, the strength of evidence currently precludes their routine use to guide decision-making on when to initiate RRT.
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 | 0.007 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.033 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".