MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415077839 · doi:10.70070/ba1rs540

The Association of Acute Kidney Injury with the Development and Progression of Chronic Kidney Disease: A Systematic Review

2025· review· en· W4415077839 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Adzana Yasadhy Hangga Prasetyo

Bibliographic record

VenueThe International Journal of Medical Science and Health Research · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Kidney Injury Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAmerican Society of Nephrology
KeywordsAcute kidney injuryKidney diseaseHazard ratioCohort studyCohortIncidence (geometry)Observational studyPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The incidence of acute kidney injury (AKI) is rising globally, representing a significant burden on healthcare systems. Historically considered a transient and fully reversible condition, a substantial body of evidence now suggests that an episode of AKI is a major independent risk factor for adverse long-term sequelae, most notably the development and progression of chronic kidney disease (CKD). This systematic review aims to synthesize and critically appraise the current evidence from observational cohort studies to quantify the long-term risks associated with AKI. Methods: A systematic search of the PubMed and Embase databases was conducted to identify cohort studies published from inception to September 2025 that evaluated long-term outcomes in adult patients following an episode of AKI, with a non-AKI comparator group. Studies were selected based on predefined Population, Intervention/Exposure, Comparison, Outcomes, and Study Design (PICOS) criteria, requiring a minimum follow-up of one year. Data on study design, population characteristics, definitions of AKI and CKD, follow-up duration, and reported outcomes were systematically extracted. The methodological quality and risk of bias for each included study were assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Results: Seventeen cohort studies, encompassing a total of 2,546,812 participants, met the inclusion criteria. The evidence consistently demonstrated that patients who survive an episode of AKI have a significantly higher risk of adverse long-term outcomes compared to those without AKI. The pooled adjusted Hazard Ratio (HR) for developing incident CKD was 2.72 (95% CI 2.01–3.69). The risk for progressing to end-stage renal disease (ESRD) was even more pronounced, with a pooled adjusted HR of 4.15 (95% CI 2.58–6.67). Furthermore, AKI was associated with a nearly doubled risk of long-term all-cause mortality (pooled adjusted HR 1.85, 95% CI 1.65–2.08). The risk for all outcomes was graded, increasing with the severity and duration of the initial AKI episode. Notably, even mild (Stage 1) or transient (<3 days) AKI was associated with a significantly increased risk of incident CKD. Other significant adverse outcomes included increased risks of heart failure, myocardial infarction, and recurrent AKI. Discussion: The synthesized evidence robustly demonstrates that AKI is not merely a transient event but a sentinel insult that can initiate a persistent trajectory toward chronic disease and premature death. The pathophysiological transition from AKI to CKD is driven by complex processes of maladaptive repair, including persistent inflammation, endothelial dysfunction, cellular senescence, and ultimately, renal fibrosis. These findings challenge the conventional clinical paradigm of "renal recovery" based solely on the normalization of serum creatinine and highlight a critical need for structured, long-term surveillance of AKI survivors. Conclusion: AKI is a potent and independent risk factor for the development of incident CKD, the progression of pre-existing CKD, ESRD, and premature mortality. Survivors of an AKI episode represent a high-risk population that warrants systematic, long-term nephrological follow-up to monitor for and mitigate these adverse cardiorenal outcomes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.073
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.414
Threshold uncertainty score0.985

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0730.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.124
GPT teacher head0.554
Teacher spread0.430 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe International Journal of Medical Science and Health ResearchSame topicAcute Kidney Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207