MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Post–Acute Kidney Injury Proteinuria and Subsequent Kidney Disease Progression

2020· article· en· W3000897988 on OpenAlexaff
Chi‐yuan Hsu, Vernon M. Chinchilli, Steven G. Coca, Prasad Devarajan, Nasrollah Ghahramani, Alan S. Go, Raymond K. Hsu, T. Alp İkizler, James S. Kaufman, Kathleen D. Liu, Chirag R. Parikh, William Reeves, Mark M. Wurfel, Michael Zappitelli, Paul L. Kimmel, Edward D. Siew

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA Internal Medicine · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Kidney Injury Research
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of TorontoSickKids Foundation
FundersNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney DiseasesNational Institutes of HealthU.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
KeywordsMedicineRenal functionAcute kidney injuryKidney diseaseHazard ratioProteinuriaInternal medicineCreatinineAlbuminuriaProspective cohort studyCohort studyUrologyNephrologyKidneyConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Importance: Among patients who had acute kidney injury (AKI) during hospitalization, there is a need to improve risk prediction such that those at highest risk for subsequent loss of kidney function are identified for appropriate follow-up. Objective: To evaluate the association of post-AKI proteinuria with increased risk of future loss of renal function. Design, Setting, and Participants: The Assessment, Serial Evaluation, and Subsequent Sequelae in Acute Kidney Injury (ASSESS-AKI) Study was a multicenter prospective cohort study including 4 clinical centers in North America included 1538 patients enrolled 3 months after hospital discharge between December 2009 and February 2015. Exposures: Urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio (ACR) quantified 3 months after hospital discharge. Main Outcomes and Measures: Kidney disease progression defined as halving of estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) or end-stage renal disease. Results: Of the 1538 participants, 769 (50%) had AKI durring hospitalization. The baseline study visit took place at a mean (SD) 91 (23) days after discharge. The mean (SD) age was 65 (13) years; the median eGFR was 68 mL/min/1.73 m2; and the median urine ACR was 15 mg/g. Overall, 547 (37%) study participants were women and 195 (13%) were black. After a median follow-up of 4.7 years, 138 (9%) participants had kidney disease progression. Higher post-AKI urine ACR level was associated with increased risk of kidney disease progression (hazard ratio [HR], 1.53 for each doubling; 95% CI, 1.45-1.62), and urine ACR measurement was a strong discriminator for future kidney disease progression (C statistic, 0.82). The performance of urine ACR was stronger in patients who had had AKI than in those who had not (C statistic, 0.70). A comprehensive model of clinical risk factors (eGFR, blood pressure, and demographics) including ACR provided better discrimination for predicting kidney disease progression after hospital discharge among those who had had AKI (C statistic, 0.85) vs those who had not (C statistic, 0.76). In the entire matched cohort, after taking into account urine ACR, eGFR, demographics, and traditional chronic kidney risk factors determined 3 months after discharge, AKI (HR, 1.46; 95% CI, 0.51-4.13 for AKI vs non-AKI) or severity of AKI (HR, 1.54; 95% CI, 0.50-4.72 for AKI stage 1 vs non-AKI; HR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.07-4.84 for AKI stage 2 vs non-AKI; HR, 2.24; 95% CI, 0.33-15.29 for AKI stage 3 vs non-AKI) was not independently associated with more rapid kidney disease progression. Conclusions and Relevance: Proteinuria level is a valuable risk-stratification tool in the post-AKI period. These results suggest there should be more widespread and routine quantification of proteinuria after hospitalized AKI.

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)0.004
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.323 · 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

Citations170
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAMA Internal MedicineSame topicAcute Kidney Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207