MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396994569 · doi:10.1681/asn.20213210s1111b

Recovery After AKI: Goals of an AKI!Now Workgroup

2021· article· en· W4396994569 on OpenAlexaff
Samuel A. Silver, Emaad M. Abdel‐Rahman, Jorge Cerdá, Leslie S. Gewin, Javier A. Neyra, Anitha Vijayan, Erin F. Barreto

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Society of Nephrology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychiatric care and mental health services
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWorkgroupIntensive care medicineMedicineAcute kidney injuryInternal medicineComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The American Society of Nephrology recently established the AKI!Now initiative. AKI!Now aims to promote excellence in the prevention and treatment of AKI by transforming the delivery of AKI care to improve clinical and patient-centered outcomes. Herein, we describe the focused efforts of AKI!Now on “recovery after AKI.” Methods: Three core objectives were identified in the domain of AKI recovery: 1. To determine areas of priority for mechanistic research focused on recovery after AKI. It is expected that these would include a variety of experimental models suitable for various AKI etiologies and disease severities. 2. To benchmark existing strategies to care for patients after AKI including integrated insights from primary care providers, nephrologists, other subspecialty health care professionals. 3. To facilitate implementation and testing of interventions designed to limit short- and long-term complications of AKI and promote recovery. Dialysis dependent and independent AKI survivors should both be considered for these interventions and clinical trials. Results: The AKI!Now initiative will highlight and clarify challenges and opportunities to improve care after AKI. This work will also inform who is followed after AKI and by whom (i.e., primary care and/or nephrology), options for care delivery (i.e., in-person versus telehealth), and potential practices to improve outcomes (i.e., role of ACEi/ARB and SGLT2 inhibitors after AKI, physical/cognitive rehabilitation). The stakeholder relationships formed, including those with patients, healthcare professionals, industry, and academia, will facilitate a collaborative research and practice agenda necessary to understand and outline best practices after AKI. Conclusions: Survivors of AKI are a high-risk and growing population, and AKI is associated with worse long-term outcomes than an acute myocardial infarction. However, how to care for patients after AKI remains ill-defined with substantial practice variation. This represents an opportunity for the “recovery after AKI” workgroup of AKI!Now to provide leadership by raising awareness and promoting strategies focused on equitable and effective post-AKI care throughout the American Society of Nephrology and wider nephrology community.

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)0.060
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.060
Threshold uncertainty score0.318

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0600.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0080.003
Scholarly communication0.0100.010
Open science0.0050.033
Research integrity0.0090.013
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.014

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.314 · 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
GenreCommentary

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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Society of NephrologySame topicPsychiatric care and mental health servicesFrench-language works237,207