{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.026022304832713755, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 4.988888888888889, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
AKI Adjudication: Do We Need It

Adjudication, which comes from the Latin term “adjudicare” (to act as a judge), uses expert opinion to define and classify disease entities. The use of clinical adjudication may help to define more homogeneous disease subsets but comes at the expense of effort needed and generalizability. Here, we will describe the pros and cons of acute kidney injury (AKI) adjudication under varied circumstances. We will use heart failure as a paradigm and provide comparable examples from the current AKI literature.