Development and external validation of an acute kidney injury risk score for use in the general population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Improving recognition of patients at increased risk of acute kidney injury (AKI) in the community may facilitate earlier detection and implementation of proactive prevention measures that mitigate the impact of AKI. The aim of this study was to develop and externally validate a practical risk score to predict the risk of AKI in either hospital or community settings using routinely collected data. METHODS: Routinely collected linked datasets from Tayside, Scotland, were used to develop the risk score and datasets from Kent in the UK and Alberta in Canada were used to externally validate it. AKI was defined using the Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes serum creatinine-based criteria. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed with occurrence of AKI within 1 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 into two populations: 218 091 individuals from Kent, UK and 1 173 607 individuals from Alberta, Canada. Four variables were independent predictors for AKI by logistic regression: older age, lower baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate, diabetes and heart failure. A risk score including these four variables had good predictive performance, with a C-statistic of 0.80 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.80-0.81] in the development cohort and 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. CONCLUSION: We have devised and externally validated a simple risk score from routinely collected data that can aid both primary and secondary care physicians in identifying patients at high risk of 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 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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".