Identification of Patients Expected to Benefit from Electronic Alerts for Acute Kidney Injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and objectives Electronic alerts for heterogenous conditions such as AKI may not provide benefit for all eligible patients and can lead to alert fatigue, suggesting that personalized alert targeting may be useful. Uplift-based alert targeting may be superior to purely prognostic-targeting of interventions because uplift models assess marginal treatment effect rather than likelihood of outcome. Design, setting, participants, & measurements This is a secondary analysis of a clinical trial of 2278 adult patients with AKI randomized to an automated, electronic alert system versus usual care. We used three uplift algorithms and one purely prognostic algorithm, trained in 70% of the data, and evaluated the effect of targeting alerts to patients with higher scores in the held-out 30% of the data. The performance of the targeting strategy was assessed as the interaction between the model prediction of likelihood to benefit from alerts and randomization status. The outcome of interest was maximum relative change in creatinine from the time of randomization to 3 days after randomization. Results The three uplift score algorithms all gave rise to a significant interaction term, suggesting that a strategy of targeting individuals with higher uplift scores would lead to a beneficial effect of AKI alerting, in contrast to the null effect seen in the overall study. The prognostic model did not successfully stratify patients with regards to benefit of the intervention. Among individuals in the high uplift group, alerting was associated with a median reduction in change in creatinine of −5.3% ( P =0.03). In the low uplift group, alerting was associated with a median increase in change in creatinine of +5.3% ( P =0.005). Older individuals, women, and those with a lower randomization creatinine were more likely to receive high uplift scores, suggesting that alerts may benefit those with more slowly developing AKI. Conclusions Uplift modeling, which accounts for treatment effect, can successfully target electronic alerts for AKI to those most likely to benefit, whereas purely prognostic targeting cannot.
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 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".