MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2922705421 · doi:10.2215/cjn.05530518

Selection and Receipt of Kidney Replacement in Critically Ill Older Patients with AKI

2019· article· en· W2922705421 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Sean M. Bagshaw, Neill K. J. Adhikari, Karen E. A. Burns, Jan O. Friedrich, Josée Bouchard, François Lamontagne, Lauralyn A. McIntrye, Jean‐François Cailhier, Peter Dodek, Henry T. Stelfox, Margaret S. Herridge, Stephen E. Lapinsky, John Muscedere, James C. Barton, Donald Griesdale, Mark Soth, A. Ambosta, Gerald Lebovic, Ron Wald

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Kidney Injury Research
Canadian institutionsSt. Joseph’s Healthcare HamiltonQueen's UniversityToronto General HospitalVancouver General HospitalKingston General HospitalMount Sinai HospitalUniversity of CalgarySt. Paul's HospitalCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de SherbrookeUniversity of British ColumbiaCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalUniversity Health NetworkHealth Sciences CentreOttawa HospitalHôpital du Sacré-Cœur de MontréalUniversity of OttawaUniversity of TorontoUniversité de SherbrookeSt. Michael's HospitalSunnybrook Health Science CentreUniversité de MontréalUniversity of Alberta
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCanadian Frailty Network
KeywordsMedicineRenal replacement therapyInterquartile rangeAcute kidney injuryIntensive care unitHazard ratioKidney diseaseIntensive care medicineInternal medicineConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Visual Abstract Export Background and objectives Older patients in the intensive care unit are at greater risk of AKI; however, use of kidney replacement therapy in this population is poorly characterized. We describe the triggers and outcomes associated with kidney replacement therapy in older patients with AKI in the intensive care unit. Design, setting, participants, & measurements Our study was a prospective cohort study in 16 Canadian hospitals from September 2013 to November 2015. Patients were ≥65 years old, were critically ill, and had severe AKI; exclusion criteria were urgent kidney replacement therapy for a toxin and ESKD. We recorded triggers for kidney replacement therapy (primary exposure), reasons for not receiving kidney replacement therapy, 90-day mortality (primary outcome), and kidney recovery. Results Of 499 patients, mean (SD) age was 75 (7) years old, Charlson comorbidity score was 3.0 (2.3), and median (interquartile range) Clinical Frailty Scale score was 4 (3–5). Most were receiving mechanical ventilation (64%; n=319) and vasoactive support (63%; n=314). Clinicians were willing to offer kidney replacement therapy to 361 (72%) patients, and 229 (46%) received kidney replacement therapy. Main triggers for kidney replacement therapy were oligoanuria, fluid overload, and acidemia, whereas main reasons for not receiving therapy were anticipated recovery (67%; n=181) and therapy not consistent with patient preferences for care (24%; n=66). Ninety-day mortality was similar in patients who did and did not receive kidney replacement therapy (50% versus 51%; adjusted hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% confidence interval, 0.58 to 1.06); however, decisions to offer kidney replacement therapy varied significantly by patient mix, acuity, and perceived benefit. There were no differences in health-related quality of life or rehospitalization among survivors. Conclusions Most older, critically ill patients with severe AKI were perceived as candidates for kidney replacement therapy, and approximately one half received therapy. Both willingness to offer kidney replacement therapy and reasons for not starting showed heterogeneity due to a range in patient-specific factors and clinician perceptions of benefit.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.072
Threshold uncertainty score0.143

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.340 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations27
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Journal of the American Society of NephrologySame topicAcute Kidney Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207