FIGURE 1:

[TIMP-2]•[IGFBP7] levels in groups where there was discordance between the clinical adjudication committee (CAC) and the KDIGO criteria. Box and whiskers show IQRs and total observed ranges (censored by 1.5 times the box range), respectively. Seven cases were adjudicated as not AKI (AKI 0/3 or 1/3) but were KDIGO AKI(+), while six cases were adjudicated as AKI (AKI 2/3 or 3/3) but were KDIGO AKI(−). In cases of discordance between CAC adjudication and KDIGO criteria, patients adjudicated as AKI by the CAC had significantly higher levels of [TIMP-2]•[IGFBP7] than patients adjudicated as no AKI (P = 0.008).