MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4378347721 · doi:10.1097/md.0000000000033888

Acute kidney injury in diabetic patients: A narrative review

2023· review· en· W4378347721 on OpenAlexaff
Amninder Kaur, Gaurav Shekhar Sharma, Damodar Kumbala

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Kidney Disease and Diabetes
Canadian institutionsRogue Research (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAcute kidney injuryNarrative reviewDiabetes mellitusMEDLINEIntensive care medicineInternal medicineEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Diabetes mellitus (DM) is the most common cause of chronic kidney disease, which leads to end-stage renal failure worldwide. Glomerular damage, renal arteriosclerosis, and atherosclerosis are the contributing factors in diabetic patients, leading to the progression of kidney damage. Diabetes is a distinct risk factor for acute kidney injury (AKI) and AKI is associated with faster advancement of renal disease in patients with diabetes. The long-term consequences of AKI include the development of end-stage renal disease, higher cardiovascular and cerebral events, poor quality of life, and high morbidity and mortality. In general, not many studies discussed extensively "AKI in DM." Moreover, articles addressing this topic are scarce. It is also important to know the cause of AKI in diabetic patients so that timely intervention and preventive strategies can be implemented to decrease kidney injury. Aim of this review article is to address the epidemiology of AKI, its risk factors, different pathophysiological mechanisms, how AKI differs between diabetic and nondiabetic patients and its preventive and therapeutic implications in diabetics. The increasing occurrence and prevalence of AKI and DM, as well as other pertinent issues, motivated us to address this topic.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.292
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.036
GPT teacher head0.389
Teacher spread0.353 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations48
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicineSame topicChronic Kidney Disease and DiabetesFrench-language works237,207