MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4396989640 · doi:10.1681/asn.20223311s1211b

A Clinical Tool for Prediction of Bleeding Complications After Percutaneous Renal Biopsy

2022· article· en· W4396989640 on OpenAlexaffabout
Nicolas Bergeron, Stephanie Lord, Sébastien Dion, David Philibert, Simon Desmeules, Mohsen Agharazii

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Society of Nephrology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRenal Diseases and Glomerulopathies
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePercutaneousBiopsyRenal biopsyRadiologyNephrologySurgeryUrology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Kidney biopsy is a diagnostic procedure which may result in bleedingrelated complications. Developing a tool for risk stratification could help predict such risk and would benefit shared decision-making. The aim of the present study was to derive and verify such a tool from training and validation cohorts. Methods: This is a single-center study of 1450 ultrasound-guided native kidney biopsies performed for diagnosis of kidney disease between 2007 and 2020 at a tertiary academic hospital in Quebec, Canada. Major bleeds were defined by hematoma/hematuria with 1 g/dL drop in hemoglobin (Hb) and requiring transfusion, bleeding requiring hospitalization or transfer to ICU, hemorrhagic shock, angioembolization, nephrectomy, or death. Two thirds of the cohort was randomly selected and used as the training set (n=987) for the identification of the determinants of major bleeds, using univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis, and the rest was used as validation cohort. Results: In the training cohort (59% male) the mean age, weight, Hb and platelet counts were 55±17 years, 79±20 kg, 11.4± 2.5 g/dL, and 243± 100 × 109/L, respectively, while the median eGFR was of 33 mL/min/1.73m2 (IQR: 12-62). In this group, major bleeding occurred in 57 patients (5.8%). Major bleeding was higher with younger age, lower pre-biopsy Hb, the use of anticoagulant within the week prior to the biopsy (defined as the use of direct-acting oral anticoagulants, warfarin, i.v. heparin, therapeutic doses of low molecular weight heparin), and higher INR at the time of kidney biopsy. The probability of risk was defined by the following equation: Probability of bleeding= e(-2.426054-0.017820*Age + 0.910106*Anti_Coag -0.026364*Hb + 3.142164*INR)/(1 + e(-2.426054-0.017820*Age + 0.910106*Anti_Coag -0.026364*Hb + 3.142164*INR)) The AUC of the equation was 0.741 (Min-Max: 0.740 - 0.742) in the training cohort. In our validation cohort, with similar characteristics, major bleedings occurred in 18 patients (3.9%). The AUC of the equation predicted well the risk in the validation cohort (AUC of 0.733 (Min-Max: 0.711 - 0.747)). Conclusions: This study proposes an equation for the estimation of the probability of major bleeding after percutaneous renal biopsy.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.293 · 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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Society of Nephrology→Same topicRenal Diseases and Glomerulopathies→French-language works237,207→