Lung–kidney interactions in critically ill patients: consensus report of the Acute Disease Quality Initiative (ADQI) 21 Workgroup
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Multi-organ dysfunction in critical illness is common and frequently involves the lungs and kidneys, often requiring organ support such as invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), renal replacement therapy (RRT) and/or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). METHODS: A consensus conference on the spectrum of lung-kidney interactions in critical illness was held under the auspices of the Acute Disease Quality Initiative (ADQI) in Innsbruck, Austria, in June 2018. Through review and critical appraisal of the available evidence, the current state of research, and both clinical and research recommendations were described on the following topics: epidemiology, pathophysiology and strategies to mitigate pulmonary dysfunction among patients with acute kidney injury and/or kidney dysfunction among patients with acute respiratory failure/acute respiratory distress syndrome. Furthermore, emphasis was put on patients receiving organ support (RRT, IMV and/or ECMO) and its impact on lung and kidney function. CONCLUSION: The ADQI 21 conference found significant knowledge gaps about organ crosstalk between lung and kidney and its relevance for critically ill patients. Lung protective ventilation, conservative fluid management and early recognition and treatment of pulmonary infections were the only clinical recommendations with higher quality of evidence. Recommendations for research were formulated, targeting lung-kidney interactions to improve care processes and outcomes in critical illness.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.110 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 it