MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3123501659 · doi:10.1136/bmj.m4786

Electronic health record alerts for acute kidney injury: multicenter, randomized clinical trial

2021· article· en· W3123501659 on OpenAlexaff
F. Perry Wilson, Melissa Martin, Yu Yamamoto, Caitlin Partridge, Erica Moreira, Tanima Arora, Aditya Biswas, Harold I. Feldman, Amit X. Garg, Jason H. Greenberg, Monique Hinchcliff, Stephen R. Latham, Li Fan, Haiqun Lin, Sherry G. Mansour, Dennis G. Moledina, Paul M. Palevsky, Chirag R. Parikh, Michael Simonov, Jeffrey M. Testani, Ugochukwu Ugwuowo

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Kidney Injury Research
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney DiseasesNational Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute
KeywordsMedicineAcute kidney injuryDialysisRandomized controlled trialKidney diseaseRelative riskConfidence intervalEmergency medicineRandomizationMedical recordAcute careInternal medicineIntensive care medicineHealth care

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Objective To determine whether electronic health record alerts for acute kidney injury would improve patient outcomes of mortality, dialysis, and progression of acute kidney injury. Design Double blinded, multicenter, parallel, randomized controlled trial. Setting Six hospitals (four teaching and two non-teaching) in the Yale New Haven Health System in Connecticut and Rhode Island, US, ranging from small community hospitals to large tertiary care centers. Participants 6030 adult inpatients with acute kidney injury, as defined by the Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) creatinine criteria. Interventions An electronic health record based “pop-up” alert for acute kidney injury with an associated acute kidney injury order set upon provider opening of the patient’s medical record. Main outcome measures A composite of progression of acute kidney injury, receipt of dialysis, or death within 14 days of randomization. Prespecified secondary outcomes included outcomes at each hospital and frequency of various care practices for acute kidney injury. Results 6030 patients were randomized over 22 months. The primary outcome occurred in 653 (21.3%) of 3059 patients with an alert and in 622 (20.9%) of 2971 patients receiving usual care (relative risk 1.02, 95% confidence interval 0.93 to 1.13, P=0.67). Analysis by each hospital showed worse outcomes in the two non-teaching hospitals (n=765, 13%), where alerts were associated with a higher risk of the primary outcome (relative risk 1.49, 95% confidence interval 1.12 to 1.98, P=0.006). More deaths occurred at these centers (15.6% in the alert group v 8.6% in the usual care group, P=0.003). Certain acute kidney injury care practices were increased in the alert group but did not appear to mediate these outcomes. Conclusions Alerts did not reduce the risk of our primary outcome among patients in hospital with acute kidney injury. The heterogeneity of effect across clinical centers should lead to a re-evaluation of existing alerting systems for acute kidney injury. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02753751 .

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.500
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.078
GPT teacher head0.496
Teacher spread0.418 · 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.

Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations188
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJSame topicAcute Kidney Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207