Assessing the Impact of the Prone Position on Acute Kidney Injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Prone positioning is a standard intervention in managing patients with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and is known to improve oxygenation. However, its effects on other organs, particularly the kidneys, are less well understood. This study aimed to assess the association between prone positioning and the development of acute kidney injury (AKI), specifically in overweight and obese patients. Methods: A retrospective pre–post study was conducted on a cohort of 60 critically ill ARDS patients who were placed in the prone position during hospitalization. The development of AKI was assessed using the Acute Kidney Injury Network (AKIN) criteria, with AKI measured by both creatinine levels (AKINCr) and urine output (AKINUO). Patients were divided into two groups based on body mass index (BMI): overweight/obese (BMI ≥ 25) and non-obese (BMI < 25). Data were collected before and after prone positioning. Results: In overweight/obese patients (n = 39, 57 cases), both the median AKINCr and AKINUO scores increased significantly following prone positioning (from 0 to 1, median p < 0.01, and from 0 to 2, median p < 0.01, respectively). No statistically significant changes in AKIN scores were observed in non-obese patients nor were significant differences found in either group after repositioning to supine. Conclusions: Prone positioning is associated with an increased risk of acute kidney injury in overweight and obese ARDS patients. This may be due to the kidneys’ susceptibility to intra-abdominal hypertension in these patients. Further research is needed to explore optimal proning strategies for overweight and obese populations.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".