↓ Skip to main content

Discovery and validation of cell cycle arrest biomarkers in human acute kidney injury

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, February 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
1041 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
624 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Discovery and validation of cell cycle arrest biomarkers in human acute kidney injury
Published in
Critical Care, February 2013
DOI 10.1186/cc12503
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kianoush Kashani, Ali Al-Khafaji, Thomas Ardiles, Antonio Artigas, Sean M Bagshaw, Max Bell, Azra Bihorac, Robert Birkhahn, Cynthia M Cely, Lakhmir S Chawla, Danielle L Davison, Thorsten Feldkamp, Lui G Forni, Michelle Ng Gong, Kyle J Gunnerson, Michael Haase, James Hackett, Patrick M Honore, Eric AJ Hoste, Olivier Joannes-Boyau, Michael Joannidis, Patrick Kim, Jay L Koyner, Daniel T Laskowitz, Matthew E Lissauer, Gernot Marx, Peter A McCullough, Scott Mullaney, Marlies Ostermann, Thomas Rimmelé, Nathan I Shapiro, Andrew D Shaw, Jing Shi, Amy M Sprague, Jean-Louis Vincent, Christophe Vinsonneau, Ludwig Wagner, Michael G Walker, R Gentry Wilkerson, Kai Zacharowski, John A Kellum

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Acute kidney injury (AKI) can evolve quickly and clinical measures of function often fail to detect AKI at a time when interventions are likely to provide benefit. Identifying early markers of kidney damage has been difficult due to the complex nature of human AKI, in which multiple etiologies exist. The objective of this study was to identify and validate novel biomarkers of AKI. METHODS: We performed two multicenter observational studies in critically ill patients at risk for AKI - discovery and validation. The top two markers from discovery were validated in a second study (Sapphire) and compared to a number of previously described biomarkers. In the discovery phase, we enrolled 522 adults in three distinct cohorts including patients with sepsis, shock, major surgery, and trauma and examined over 300 markers. In the Sapphire validation study, we enrolled 744 adult subjects with critical illness and without evidence of AKI at enrollment; the final analysis cohort was a heterogeneous sample of 728 critically ill patients. The primary endpoint was moderate to severe AKI (KDIGO stage 2 to 3) within 12 hours of sample collection. RESULTS: Moderate to severe AKI occurred in 14% of Sapphire subjects. The two top biomarkers from discovery were validated. Urine insulin-like growth factor-binding protein 7 (IGFBP7) and tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinases-2 (TIMP-2), both inducers of G1 cell cycle arrest, a key mechanism implicated in AKI, together demonstrated an AUC of 0.80 (0.76 and 0.79 alone). Urine [TIMP-2]·[IGFBP7] was significantly superior to all previously described markers of AKI (P <0.002), none of which achieved an AUC >0.72. Furthermore, [TIMP-2]·[IGFBP7] significantly improved risk stratification when added to a nine-variable clinical model when analyzed using Cox proportional hazards model, generalized estimating equation, integrated discrimination improvement or net reclassification improvement. Finally, in sensitivity analyses [TIMP-2]·[IGFBP7] remained significant and superior to all other markers regardless of changes in reference creatinine method. CONCLUSIONS: Two novel markers for AKI have been identified and validated in independent multicenter cohorts. Both markers are superior to existing markers, provide additional information over clinical variables and add mechanistic insight into AKI. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT01209169.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 624 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 3 <1%
France 2 <1%
Canada 2 <1%
United States 2 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Nigeria 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 610 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 92 15%
Student > Postgraduate 60 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 59 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 55 9%
Student > Master 45 7%
Other 162 26%
Unknown 151 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 320 51%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 30 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 26 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 18 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 2%
Other 53 8%
Unknown 162 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 88. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 July 2023.
All research outputs
#494,013
of 26,017,215 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#290
of 6,644 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,649
of 297,359 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#3
of 164 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,017,215 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,644 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 297,359 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 164 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.