MCQ-From Prediction to Prevention: Can AKI Risk Scores Change Outcomes?

"*" indicates required fields

1. A 68-year-old man with septic shock secondary to pneumonia is receiving norepinephrine 0.08 µg/kg/min. His serum creatinine has increased from 1.0 to 1.1 mg/dL. Urine output is 0.35 mL/kg/h over the previous 6 hours. Urinary [TIMP-2] × [IGFBP7] is 1.2. What is the most appropriate next step?
2. An ICU introduces an AI-based AKI prediction model. A patient with septic shock receives an alert predicting an 85% probability of Stage 2–3 AKI within 24 hours. Which statement best reflects current best practice?
3. Which factor most limits the generalizability of a single AKI prediction model across all ICU populations?
4. An intensivist is shown an AI-generated AKI risk score without any explanation of how the prediction was derived. Which feature would most improve clinical adoption?
5. Which intervention is LEAST likely to be included in a nephroprotective bundle for a septic patient identified as high risk for AKI?
6. A hospital implements a real-time AKI alert system. Initially, clinicians respond to alerts, but after several months most notifications are ignored. Which intervention is most likely to improve effectiveness?
7. A patient’s AKI risk score changes from 20% to 75% over 8 hours despite stable creatinine. Which factor most strongly supports recalculating risk dynamically?
8. A future ICU system combines genomics, proteomics, urinary biomarkers, and continuous physiological monitoring. What is the principal advantage of such an approach?
Name*
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Loading

Leave Your Comment