Supplementary Material for: Epidemiology of renal replacement therapy for critically ill patients across seven health jurisdictions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Acute kidney injury (AKI) requiring treatment with renal replacement therapy (RRT) is a common complication after admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) and is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. However, the prevalence of RRT use and the associated outcomes in critically patients across the globe are not well described. Therefore, we describe the epidemiology and outcomes of patients receiving RRT for AKI in ICUs across several large health system jurisdictions. Methods: Retrospective cohort analysis using nationally representative and comparable databases from seven health jurisdictions in Australia, Brazil, Canada, Denmark, New Zealand, Scotland, and the United States (USA) between 2006-2023, depending on data availability of each dataset. Patients with history of end-stage kidney disease receiving chronic RRT and patients with a history of renal transplant were excluded. Results: A total of 4,104,480 patients in the ICU cohort and 3,520,516 patients in the mechanical ventilation cohort were included. Overall, 156,403 (3.8%) patients in the ICU cohort and 240,824 (6.8%) patients in the mechanical ventilation cohort were treated with RRT for AKI. In the ICU cohort, the proportion of patients treated with RRT was lowest in Australia and Brazil (3.3%) and highest in Scotland (9.2%). The in-hospital mortality for critically ill patients treated with RRT was almost four-fold higher (57.1%) than those not receiving RRT (16.8%). The mortality of patients treated with RRT varied across the health jurisdictions from 37-65%. Conclusion: The outcomes of patients who receive RRT in ICUs throughout the world vary widely. Our research suggests differences in access to and provision of this therapy are contributing factors.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.257 | 0.016 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".