MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2952697842 · doi:10.1093/ndt/gfz103.sp210

SP210EXTERNAL VALIDATION OF A RISK SCORE TO PREDICT AKI IN EITHER THE COMMUNITY OR HOSPITAL SETTING

2019· article· en· W2952697842 on OpenAlexaffabout
Samira Bell, Matthew T. James, Chris Farmer, Zhi Tan, Nicosha De Souza, Miles D. Witham

Bibliographic record

VenueNephrology Dialysis Transplantation · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicDisaster Response and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIntensive care medicineEmergency medicineFramingham Risk ScoreRisk assessmentInternal medicineDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Acute Kidney Injury (AKI) affects approximately 15% of all hospitalised patients in developed countries with a significant proportion originating in the community. Even small changes in kidney function are associated with adverse outcomes, including increased mortality even in patients with Stage 1 AKI compared to those without AKI. It has been suggested that up to 30% of AKI episodes may be preventable. Recognition of individuals at risk of AKI is therefore a critical first step in implementing strategies to prevent AKI. The aim of this study was to develop and externally validate a practical score to predict the risk of any AKI (either in hospital or the community) for use in the general population using routinely collected data. METHODS: Routinely collected linked data sets from Tayside, Scotland, were used to develop the risk score, and data sets from Kent in the United Kingdom and Alberta in Canada were used to externally validate it. AKI was defined using the Kidney Disease Kidney Improving Global Outcomes serum creatinine based criteria based on the standardised United Kingdom National Health Service algorithm. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed, with occurrence of AKI within one year as the dependent variable. Model performance was determined by assessing discrimination (c-statistic) and calibration. RESULTS: The risk score was developed in 273,450 patients from the Tayside region of Scotland and externally validated in two other populations; a cohort of 218,091 patients from Kent, United Kingdom and a cohort of 1,173,607 patients from Alberta, Canada. Four independent predictors for AKI were included in the risk score; older age, lower baseline eGFR, diabetes and heart failure. A risk score including these four variables had good predictive performance, with a c-statistic of 0.80 (95% CI 0.80-0.81) in the development cohort, 0.71 (95% CI 0.70-0.72) in the Kent, UK external validation cohort and 0.76 (95% CI 0.75- 0.76) in the Canadian validation cohort. Better discrimination was observed for predicting more severe (KDIGO Stage 2 or 3) AKI with a c-statistic of 0.81 (95% CI 0.80 -0.82) in the development cohort, 0.74 (95% CI 0.73-0.75) in the Kent, UK external validation cohort and 0.78 (95%CI 0.77- 0.78) in the Canadian validation cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Identification of patients at high risk for AKI is key to early identification and prevention of AKI. We have devised and validated both within and out with the UK a simple risk score from routinely collected data which can aid both primary and secondary care physicians in identifying these patients.

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)0.002
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 score0.148
Threshold uncertainty score0.325

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.312 · 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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNephrology Dialysis TransplantationSame topicDisaster Response and ManagementFrench-language works237,207