MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393039933 · doi:10.1186/s13054-024-04877-4

Sepsis-associated acute kidney injury: recent advances in enrichment strategies, sub-phenotyping and clinical trials

2024· article· en· W4393039933 on OpenAlexaff
Matthieu Legrand, Sean M. Bagshaw, Pavan K. Bhatraju, Azra Bihorac, Ellen C. Caniglia, Ashish K. Khanna, John A. Kellum, Jay L. Koyner, Michael O. Harhay, Fernando G. Zampieri, Alexander Zarbock, Kevin K. Chung, Kathleen D. Liu, Ravindra L. Mehta, Peter Pickkers, Abigail Ryan, Juliane Bernholz, Laura M. Dember, Martin Gallagher, Patrick Rossignol, Marlies Ostermann

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Care · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Kidney Injury Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaAlberta Health Services
FundersWake Forest UniversityNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney DiseasesPerelman School of Medicine, University of PennsylvaniaUniversity of WashingtonUniversity of Pennsylvania
KeywordsMedicineIntensive care medicineClinical trialSepsisAcute kidney injuryClinical study designClinical endpointMEDLINEInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Acute kidney injury (AKI) often complicates sepsis and is associated with high morbidity and mortality. In recent years, several important clinical trials have improved our understanding of sepsis-associated AKI (SA-AKI) and impacted clinical care. Advances in sub-phenotyping of sepsis and AKI and clinical trial design offer unprecedented opportunities to fill gaps in knowledge and generate better evidence for improving the outcome of critically ill patients with SA-AKI. In this manuscript, we review the recent literature of clinical trials in sepsis with focus on studies that explore SA-AKI as a primary or secondary outcome. We discuss lessons learned and potential opportunities to improve the design of clinical trials and generate actionable evidence in future research. We specifically discuss the role of enrichment strategies to target populations that are most likely to derive benefit and the importance of patient-centered clinical trial endpoints and appropriate trial designs with the aim to provide guidance in designing future trials.

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)0.109
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.162
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.109
Threshold uncertainty score0.578

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1090.162
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.003
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0060.006
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0040.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.105
GPT teacher head0.516
Teacher spread0.412 · 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 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

Citations76
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical CareSame topicAcute Kidney Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207