MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4397046916 · doi:10.1681/asn.20223311s1801a

Predictors of Bleeding Following Inpatient Percutaneous Kidney Biopsy

2022· article· en· W4397046916 on OpenAlexaff
Tulayla Katmeh, Aran Thanamayooran, Isaac Bai, Geraint Berger, Meghan Day, Bright Huo, Amanda J. Vinson, Karthik Tennankore

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Society of Nephrology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRenal Diseases and Glomerulopathies
Canadian institutionsDalhousie UniversityNova Scotia Health Authority
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePercutaneousBiopsyNephrologyRadiologyKidneyRenal biopsyUrologySurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Percutaneous diagnostic kidney biopsy is important in managing kidney disease, but less is known about predictors of bleeding following biopsy. The purpose of this study was to determine clinical risk factors for minor/major bleeding following percutaneous diagnostic kidney biopsy among admitted patients. Methods: We analyzed a cohort of all adults that received an in-patient diagnostic kidney biopsy at a tertiary care center from 2014-2019. Biopsies for the diagnosis of kidney tumors were excluded. Outcomes of interest were minor bleeding (any of hemoglobin drop >10 g/L within 24 hours post biopsy, macrohematuria, hematoma on ultrasound) and major bleeding (need for blood transfusion or surgical intervention post biopsy). Predictors of major bleeding were analyzed using logistic regression; those factors significantly associated with bleeding using a P<0.05 were included in a multivariable model and reported using odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results: Between 2014-2019, a total of 380 in-patient biopsies were performed. 221 (58.2%) of the patients were male, and mean age of the population was 57.3 ± 15.8 years. A minor bleed occurred in 131 (34.5%) of patients, and a major bleed occurred in 56 (14.7%) of patients. Risk factors for major bleeding are noted in Table 1. Factors significantly associated with major bleed included: creatinine 400-600 (OR. 7.46; 95%CI. 2.13-26.14); creatinine >600 or on dialysis (OR. 13.82; 95%CI. 4.04-47.25); structural heart disease (OR. 9.40; 95%CI. 1.33-66.47) and cerebrovascular disease (OR. 6.62; 95%CI. 1.47-29.78). Table 1. - Risk factors for major bleeding following kidney biopsy (adjusted model; N=325) Variable Odds ratio 95% Confidence interval Lab values Creatinine <200 umol/L Reference Reference 200-400 umol/L 2.95 0.87-9.92 400-600 umol/L 7.46 2.13-26.14 >600 13.82 4.04-47.25 White blood cell count <11.00 Reference Reference ≥11.00 1.89 0.86-4.14 Platelet count <150 uL Reference Reference ≥150 uL 0.57 0.26-1.29 Albumin (each 1 unit increase in g/L) 0.96 0.91-1.00 Comorbidities Anemia (Hemoglobin <100 g/L) 2.57 1.06-6.25 Active cancer 1.93 0.55-6.74 Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease 1.16 0.37-3.66 Structural heart disease 9.40 1.33-66.47 Cerebrovascular disease 6.62 1.47-29.78 Ace inhibitor use (at baseline) 0.66 0.29-1.52 Anticoagulant (at baseline)* 1.03 0.48-2.19 *Anticoagulants were discontinued prior to biopsy Conclusions: This study highlights risk factors associated with bleeding after inpatient percutaneous kidney biopsy which is of clinical importance for health care professionals. In future study we will derive and validate a risk prediction model for major and minor bleeding following 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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