MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392663419 · doi:10.1016/j.jhep.2024.03.006

Prospective validation of the EASL management algorithm for acute kidney injury in cirrhosis

2024· article· en· W4392663419 on OpenAlexafffund
Ann T., Cristina Solé, Adrià Juanola, Laia Escudé, Laura Napoleone, Emma Avitabile, Martina Pérez, Marta Carol, Enrico Pompili, Jordi Gratacós‐Ginès, Anna Sòria, Ana Belén Rubio, Marta Cervera, Maria José Moreta, Manuel Morales‐Ruiz, Elsa Solà, Esteban Poch, Núria Fabrellas, Isabel Graupera, Elisa Pose, Pere Ginès

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Hepatology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLiver Disease and Transplantation
Canadian institutionsToronto Liver CentreUniversity Health Network
FundersInstituto de Salud Carlos IIICanadian Liver FoundationCanadian Association for the Study of the Liver
KeywordsAcute kidney injuryCirrhosisMedicineAlgorithmProspective cohort studyComputer scienceInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The management of acute kidney injury (AKI) in cirrhosis is challenging. The EASL guidelines proposed an algorithm for the management of AKI, but this has never been validated. We aimed to prospectively evaluate this algorithm in clinical practice. METHODS: We performed a prospective cohort study in consecutive hospitalized patients with cirrhosis and AKI. The EASL management algorithm includes identification/treatment of precipitating factors, 2-day albumin infusion in patients with AKI ≥stage 1B, and treatment with terlipressin in patients with hepatorenal syndrome (HRS-AKI). The primary outcome was treatment response, which included both full and partial response. Secondary outcomes were survival and adverse events associated with terlipressin therapy. RESULTS: A total of 202 AKI episodes in 139 patients were included. Overall treatment response was 80%, while renal replacement therapy was required in only 8%. Response to albumin infusion was achieved in one-third of episodes. Of patients not responding to albumin, most (74%) did not meet the diagnostic criteria of HRS-AKI, with acute tubular necrosis (ATN) being the most common phenotype. The response rate in patients not meeting the criteria for HRS-AKI was 70%. Only 30 patients met the diagnostic criteria for HRS-AKI, and their response rate to terlipressin was 61%. Median time from AKI diagnosis to terlipressin initiation was only 2.5 days. While uNGAL (urinary neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin) could differentiate ATN from other phenotypes (AUROC 0.78), it did not predict response to therapy in HRS-AKI. Ninety-day transplant-free survival was negatively associated with MELD-Na, ATN and HRS-AKI as well as uNGAL. Three patients treated with terlipressin developed pulmonary edema. CONCLUSIONS: The application of the EASL AKI algorithm is associated with very good response rates and does not significantly delay initiation of terlipressin therapy. IMPACT AND IMPLICATIONS: The occurrence of acute kidney injury (AKI) in patients with cirrhosis is associated with poor short-term mortality. Improving its rapid identification and prompt management was the focus of the recently proposed EASL AKI algorithm. This is the first prospective study demonstrating that high AKI response rates are achieved with the use of this algorithm, which includes identification of AKI, treatment of precipitating factors, a 2-day albumin challenge in patients with AKI ≥1B, and supportive therapy in patients with persistent AKI not meeting HRS-AKI criteria or terlipressin with albumin in those with HRS-AKI. These findings support the use of this algorithm in clinical practice.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.059

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.291 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations29
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueJournal of HepatologySame topicLiver Disease and TransplantationFrench-language works237,207