Indications for and Timing of Initiation of KRT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
KRT is considered for patients with severe AKI and associated complications. The exact indications for initiating KRT have been debated for decades. There is a general consensus that KRT should be considered in patients with AKI and medically refractory complications ("urgent indications"). "Relative indications" are more common but defined with less precision. In this review, we summarize the latest evidence from recent landmark clinical trials, discuss strategies to anticipate the need for KRT in individual patients, and propose an algorithm for decision making. We emphasize that the decision to consider KRT should be made in conjunction with other forms of organ support therapies and important nonkidney factors, including the patient's preferences and overall goals of care. We also suggest future research to differentiate patients who benefit from timely initiation of KRT from those with imminent recovery of kidney function. Until then, efforts are needed to optimize the initiation and delivery of KRT in routine clinical practice, to minimize nonessential variation, and to ensure that patients with persistent AKI or progressive organ failure affected by AKI receive KRT in a timely manner.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".