Incidence and outcomes of acute kidney injury stratified by cardiogenic shock severity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Acute kidney injury (AKI) is common among patients with cardiogenic shock (CS) and it is independently associated with mortality. We sought to assess the prevalence, severity, and prognosis of AKI as a function of cardiogenic shock severity in unselected Cardiac Intensive Care Unit (CICU) patients. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed admissions to the Mayo Clinic between 2007 to 2015 and stratified patients by the AKI stage (based on modified Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes criteria) and Society for cardiovascular angiography and interventions (SCAI) shock stage. The association with in-hospital mortality was analyzed using multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: We included 9,311 unique patients with a mean age of 67 years and 37% females. SCAI shock stages A, B, C, D, and E were present in 47%, 30%, 15%, 7%, and 1% of patients. The incidence of AKI of any severity was 39% in the CICU and 51% during the hospitalization. Hospital mortality occurred in 8% of all patients, and the risk increased as a function of the rising AKI and SCAI shock stage. Worsening AKI stage was associated with increased adjusted hospital mortality (adjusted OR per AKI stage 1.22, 95% CI 1.10-1.36, p < .001). Higher AKI stages were associated with increased adjusted hospital mortality in SCAI stage A/B (p < .001), but not in SCAI stage C, D, or E (all p > .05). CONCLUSIONS: Higher AKI stages were independently associated with mortality in CICU patients after accounting for shock severity and may add incremental prognostic utility in patients with lower SCAI stages.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".