ReviewHeliyon2024
Machine learning-based diagnosis and prognosis of IgAN: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Novel therapies improve prognosis of IgAN and limit the applicability of the International IgA Nephropathy Prediction Tool.Clinical kidney journal · 2025Article
- MAL-Net: A Multi-Label Deep Learning Framework Integrating LSTM and Multi-Head Attention for Enhanced Classification of IgA Nephropathy Subtypes Using Clinical Sensor Data.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- The Association of Elevated Depression Levels and Life's Essential 8 on Cardiovascular Health With Predicted Machine Learning Models and Interpretations: Evidence From NHANES 2007-2018.Depression and anxiety · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Plenty of studies have explored the diagnosis and prognosis of IgA nephropathy (IgAN) based on machine learning (ML), but the accuracy lacks the support of evidence-based medical evidence. We aim at this problem to guide the precision treatment of IgAN. Methods: Embase, Pubmed, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were searched systematically until February 24th, 2024, for publications on ML-based diagnosis and prognosis of IgAN. Subgroup analysis or meta-regression was conducted according to modeling method, follow-up time, endpoint definition, and variable type. Further, the rank sum test was applied to compare the discrimination ability of prognosis. Results: A total of 47 studies involving 51,935 patients were eligible. Among the 38 diagnostic models, the pooled C-index was 0.902 (95 % CI: 0.878-0.926) in 27 diagnostic models. Of the 162 prognostic models, the C-index for model discrimination of 144 prognostic models was 0.838 (95 % CI: 0.827-0.850) in training. The overall discrimination ability of prognosis was as follows: COX regression > new ML models (e.g. ANN, DT, RF, SVM, XGBoost) > traditional ML models (logistic regression) > Naïve Bayesian network (P < 0.05). External validation of IIgAN-RPT in 19 models showed a pooled C-index of 0.801 (95 % CI: 0.784-0.817). Conclusions: New ML models have shown application values that are as good as traditional ML models, both in diagnosis and prognosis. In addition, future models are desired to use a more sensitive prognostic endpoint (albuminuria), improve predictive ability in moderate progression risk, and ultimately translate into clinically applicable intelligent tools.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.