Recommendations for clinical trial design in acute kidney injury from the 31st acute disease quality initiative consensus conference. A consensus statement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Novel interventions for the prevention or treatment of acute kidney injury (AKI) are currently lacking. To facilitate the evaluation and adoption of new treatments, the use of the most appropriate design and endpoints for clinical trials in AKI is critical and yet there is little consensus regarding these issues. We aimed to develop recommendations on endpoints and trial design for studies of AKI prevention and treatment interventions based on existing data and expert consensus. METHODS: At the 31st Acute Disease Quality Initiative (ADQI) meeting, international experts in critical care, nephrology, involving adults and pediatrics, biostatistics and people with lived experience (PWLE) were assembled. We focused on four main areas: (1) patient enrichment strategies, (2) prevention and attenuation studies, (3) treatment studies, and (4) innovative trial designs of studies other than traditional (parallel arm or cluster) randomized controlled trials. Using a modified Delphi process, recommendations and consensus statements were developed based on existing data, with > 90% agreement among panel members required for final adoption. RESULTS: The panel developed 12 consensus statements for clinical trial endpoints, application of enrichment strategies where appropriate, and inclusion of PWLE to inform trial designs. Innovative trial designs were also considered. CONCLUSION: The current lack of specific therapy for prevention or treatment of AKI demands refinement of future clinical trial design. Here we report the consensus findings of the 31st ADQI group meeting which has attempted to address these issues including the use of predictive and prognostic enrichment strategies to enable appropriate patient selection.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".