Prognosis of hospitalized patients with cirrhosis and acute kidney disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: or a rise in serum creatinine (sCr) of <50% for <3 months, is not clearly known. AIM: To study the prevalence, predictive factors and clinical outcomes in hospitalized cirrhotic patients with AKD. METHODS: The North American Consortium for the Study of End-Stage Liver Disease prospectively enrolled hospitalized decompensated cirrhotic patients. Patients were separated into those with normal renal function (controls or C), AKD or stage 1 AKI as their worst renal dysfunction per International Club of Ascites definition and compared. Parameters assessed included demographics, laboratory data, haemodynamics, renal and patient outcomes. RESULTS: 1244 patients with cirrhosis and ascites (C: 704 or 57%; AKD: 176 or 14%; stage 1 AKI: 364 or 29%) with similar demographics were enrolled. AKD patients had similar baseline sCr but higher hospital admission in the previous 6 months, and higher peak sCr, compared to controls, with their peak sCr being lower than that in stage 1 AKI patients (all P < .0001). The in-hospital and 30-day survival for AKD patients were intermediary between that for controls and stage 1 AKI patients (96% vs 91% vs 86%, P < .0001). The strongest predictors for AKD development while in hospital were the presence of a second infection (OR: 2.44) and diabetes (OR: 1.53). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with AKD had intermediate outcomes between stage 1 AKI and controls. AKD patients, especially those with diabetes and a second infection, need careful monitoring and prompt treatment for AKD to prevent negative outcomes.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".