Predicting kidney failure risk after acute kidney injury among people receiving nephrology clinic care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Outcomes after acute kidney injury (AKI) are well described, but not for those already under nephrology clinic care. This is where discussions about kidney failure risk are commonplace. We evaluated whether the established kidney failure risk equation (KFRE) should account for previous AKI episodes when used in this setting. METHODS: This observational cohort study included 7491 people referred for nephrology clinic care in British Columbia in 2003-09 followed to 2016. Predictors were previous Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes-based AKI, age, sex, proteinuria, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and renal diagnosis. Outcomes were 5-year kidney failure and death. We developed cause-specific Cox models (AKI versus no AKI) for kidney failure and death, stratified by eGFR (</≥30 mL/min/1.73 m2). We also compared prediction models comparing the 5-year KFRE with two refitted models, one with and one without AKI as a predictor. RESULTS: AKI was associated with increased kidney failure (33.1% versus 26.3%) and death (23.8% versus 16.8%) (P < 0.001). In Cox models, AKI was independently associated with increased kidney failure in those with an eGFR ≥30 mL/min/1.73 m2 {hazard ratio [HR] 1.35 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.07-1.70]}, no increase in those with eGFR <30 mL/min/1.73 m2 ([HR 1.05 95% CI 0.91-1.21)] and increased mortality in both subgroups [respective HRs 1.89 (95% CI 1.56-2.30) and 1.43 (1.16-1.75)]. Incorporating AKI into a refitted kidney failure prediction model did not improve predictions on comparison of receiver operating characteristics (P = 0.16) or decision curve analysis. The original KFRE calibrated poorly in this setting, underpredicting risk. CONCLUSIONS: AKI carries a poorer long-term prognosis among those already under nephrology care. AKI may not alter kidney failure risk predictions, but the use of prediction models without appreciating the full impact of AKI, including increased mortality, would be simplistic. People with kidney diseases have risks beyond simply kidney failure. This complexity and variability of outcomes of individuals is important.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".