Hierarchical endpoints in critical care: A post-hoc exploratory analysis of the standard versus accelerated initiation of renal-replacement therapy in acute kidney injury and the intensity of continuous renal-replacement therapy in critically ill patients trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To perform a post-hoc reanalysis of the Standard versus Accelerated Initiation of Renal-Replacement Therapy in Acute Kidney Injury (STARRT-AKI) and the Intensity of Continuous Renal-Replacement Therapy in Critically Ill Patients (RENAL) trials through hierarchical composite endpoint analysis using win ratio (WR). MATERIAL AND METHODS: All patients with complete information from the STARRT-AKI (which compared accelerated versus standard approaches for renal replacement therapy - RRT initiation) and RENAL (which compared two different RRT doses in critically ill patients) trials were selected. WR was defined as a hierarchical composite endpoint using 90-day mortality, RRT dependency at 90-days, intensive care unit (ICU) length-of-stay (LOS), and hospital LOS (primary analysis); values above the unit represent a benefit of the intervention for the hierarchical composite endpoint. A secondary analysis replacing LOS by days alive and free of RRT was performed. Stratified analyses were performed according to illness severity score, surgical status, and the presence of sepsis. RESULTS: The WR analysis produced 2,141,830 pairs for the STARRT-AKI trial and 536,446 pairs for the RENAL trial, respectively. The WR results for STARRT-AKI and RENAL were 1.04 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.96-1.13; p = 0.33) and 1.02 (95% CI; 0.90-1.15; p = 0.75) for the primary analysis, and 0.88 (95% CI; 0.79-0.99; p = 0.03) and 1.02 (95% CI; 0.87-1.21; p = 0.77) for the secondary analysis, respectively. The stratified analysis of the primary suggested possible benefit of the accelerated-strategy in the STARRT-AKI trial for non-surgical patients with sepsis, while the secondary analysis suggested possible harm of the accelerated-strategy for surgical patients without sepsis. There was no evidence of heterogeneity in treatment effects in stratified analyses in the RENAL trial. CONCLUSION: WR approach using a hierarchical composite endpoint is feasible for trials in critical care nephrology. The primary re-analyses of the STARRT-AKI and RENAL trials both yielded neutral results; however, there was suggestion of heterogeneity in treatment effect in stratified analyses of the STARRT-AKI trial by surgical status and sepsis. Selection of the endpoints and hierarchical ordering before trial design using the WR approach can have important implications for trial interpretation. TRIAL REGISTRY: ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT02568722 (STARRT-AKI) and NCT00076219 (RENAL).
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 | 0.076 | 0.093 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.016 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".