Association of Acute Kidney Injury with the Risk of Dementia: A Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Acute kidney injury (AKI) is associated with several adverse outcomes, including new or progressive chronic kidney disease, end-stage kidney disease, and mortality. Epidemiological studies have reported an association between AKI and dementia as a long-term adverse outcome. This meta-analysis was aimed to understand the association between AKI and dementia risk. A literature search was performed in MEDLINE and Embase databases, from inception to July 2021, to identify epidemiological studies reporting the association between AKI and dementia risk. Title and abstract followed by the full-text of retrieved articles were screened, data were extracted, and quality was assessed, using the Newcastle–Ottawa scale by two investigators independently. The primary outcome was to compute the pooled risk of dementia in AKI patients. Subgroup analysis was also performed based on age and co-morbidities. Certainty of evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach. Statistical analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.4 software. Four studies (cohort (n = 3) and case–control (n = 1)) with a total of 429,211 patients, of which 211,749 had AKI, were identified. The mean age of the patients and the follow-up period were 64.15 ± 16.09 years and 8.9 years, respectively. Included studies were of moderate to high quality. The pooled estimate revealed a significantly higher risk of dementia in AKI patients with an overall relative risk/risk ratio (RR) of 1.92 (95% CI: 1.52–2.43), p ≤ 0.00001. Dementia risk increases by 10% with one year increase in age with an RR of 1.10 (95% CI: 1.09–1.11), p < 0.00001. Subgroup analysis based on stroke as a co-morbid condition also revealed significantly higher dementia risk in AKI patients (RR 2.30 (95% CI: 1.62–3.28), p = 0.009). All-cause mortality risk was also significantly higher in AKI patients with dementia with a pooled RR of 2.11 (95% CI: 1.20–3.70), p = 0.009. The strength of the evidence was of very low certainty as per the GRADE assessment. Patients with AKI have a higher risk of dementia. Further large epidemiological studies are needed to confirm the mechanistic association.
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 | 0.016 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.072 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".