Opportunities in digital health and electronic health records for acute kidney injury care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The field of digital health is evolving rapidly with applications relevant to the prediction, detection and management of acute kidney injury (AKI). This review will summarize recent publications in these areas. RECENT FINDINGS: Machine learning (ML) approaches have been applied predominantly for AKI prediction, but also to identify patients with AKI at higher risk of adverse outcomes, and to discriminate different subgroups (subphenotypes) of AKI. There have been multiple publications in this area, but a smaller number of ML models have robust external validation or the ability to run in real-time in clinical systems. Recent studies of AKI alerting systems and clinical decision support systems continue to demonstrate variable results, which is likely to result from differences in local context and implementation strategies. In the design of AKI alerting systems, choice of baseline creatinine has a strong effect on performance of AKI detection algorithms. SUMMARY: Further research is required to overcome barriers to the validation and implementation of ML models for AKI care. Simpler electronic systems within the electronic medical record can lead to improved care in some but not all settings, and careful consideration of local context and implementation strategy is recommended.
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 | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".