MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408108414 · doi:10.1097/ccm.0000000000006616

Time to Renal Replacement Therapy Initiation in Critically Ill Patients With Acute Kidney Injury: A Secondary Analysis of the Standard Versus Accelerated Initiation of Renal Replacement Therapy in Acute Kidney Injury (STARRT-AKI) Trial

2025· article· en· W4408108414 on OpenAlexafffund
Rachel Jeong, Sean M. Bagshaw, Ehsan Ghamarian, Andrea Harvey, Michael Joannidis, Brian Kirkham, Marlies Ostermann, Jean‐Pierre Quenot, Paul J. Young, Ron Wald

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Care Medicine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Kidney Injury Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoAlberta Health ServicesUniversity of AlbertaRoyal Victoria Regional Health CentreSt. Michael's HospitalUniversity of Calgary
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsRenal replacement therapyMedicineAcute kidney injuryInterquartile rangeOdds ratioQuartileInternal medicineSurgeryConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Among critically ill patients with severe acute kidney injury (AKI) who lack emergent indications for renal replacement therapy (RRT), a strategy of preemptive RRT initiation does not lead to improved outcomes. However, for patients with persistent AKI and without urgent indications for RRT, the safety of prolonged delays in RRT initiation is unclear. We sought to assess the association between progressively longer delays in RRT initiation and clinical outcomes. DESIGN: A post hoc secondary analysis. SETTING: The multinational STandard vs. Accelerated initiation of Renal Replacement Therapy in Acute Kidney Injury (STARRT-AKI) trial. PATIENTS: Participants allocated to the standard strategy of the STARRT-AKI trial. INTERVENTIONS: The exposure was time from randomization to RRT initiation, evaluated in quartiles and as a continuous variable. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at 90 days. Secondary outcomes were RRT dependence, RRT-free days, and hospital-free days, all at 90 days, as well length of ICU and hospital stay. Of the 1462 participants allocated to the standard strategy group, 903 (62%) received RRT. Median time (interquartile range) to RRT initiation was 12.1 hours (8.3-13.8 hr), 24.5 hours (21.8-26.5 hr), 46.8 hours (35.2-52.1 hr), and 96.1 hours (76.7-139.2 hr) in quartiles 1-4, respectively. Prolonged time to RRT initiation was associated with a lower risk of death at 90 days (quartile 4 vs. 1: adjusted odds ratio, 0.63 [95% CI, 0.42-0.94]); further analyses using cubic splines and inverse probability weighting to account for immortal time bias showed no association with the risk of death. There was no association between time to RRT initiation and RRT-free days, hospital-free days, or lengths of ICU or hospital stay. Longer delay to RRT initiation had a linear association with RRT dependence at 90 days. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with no urgent indications and who received RRT in the standard strategy of the STARRT-AKI trial, longer deferral of RRT initiation was not associated with a higher risk of mortality.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.344 · 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

Citations11
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical Care MedicineSame topicAcute Kidney Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207