Timing of kidney replacement therapy initiation in acute kidney injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Over the past 5 years, four major randomized controlled trials were published informing our practice on the optimal timing for kidney replacement therapy (KRT) initiation in critically ill patients with acute kidney injury (AKI). In this review, we summarize the main findings of these trails and discuss the knowledge gaps that still need to be addressed. RECENT FINDINGS: Four recent trials compared early versus delayed initiation of KRT in critically ill patients with acute kidney injury. Though each trial had unique design features, the three largest trials showed that earlier initiation of KRT did not reduce all-cause mortality. SUMMARY: A preemptive strategy for initiation of kidney replacement therapy does not confer better survival in critically ill patients with severe AKI. However, early initiation of KRT was associated with a greater risk of iatrogenic complications and one trial showed a higher risk of persistent dialysis dependence. In the absence of absolute indications for KRT, clinicians should defer KRT initiation in patients with AKI. Further research is needed to examine the safety of prolonged KRT deferral and identify markers of fluid overload that may serve to trigger KRT initiation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".