Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39663146›Full record

SynthesisRenal failure2024

Artificial intelligence in predicting chronic kidney disease prognosis. A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Qinyu Pan, Mengli Tong

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Renal failure, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Qinyu PanHangzhou TCM Hospital, Affiliated to Zhejiang Chinese Medical University, Hangzhou, China.
Mengli TongHangzhou TCM Hospital, Affiliated to Zhejiang Chinese Medical University, Hangzhou, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundChronic kidney disease (CKD) is a common condition that can lead to serious health complications. Artificial Intelligence (AI) has shown the potential to improve the prediction of CKD progression, offering increased accuracy over traditional methods. Therefore, this systematic review and meta-analysis examine the diagnostic performance of various AI models in predicting CKD.

methodSearch was performed in different databases for studies reporting the diagnostic accuracy of AI-based prediction models for the progression of CKD. Meanwhile, pre-defined eligibility criteria were used for the selection of studies. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, and area under curve (AUC) were calculated utilizing Meta-disc 1.4. Quality assessment was performed using the prediction model risk of bias assessment tool (PROBAST).

resultsA total of 33 studies were included. The pooled sensitivity of prediction tools was 0.43 (95% CI, 0.41-0.44,

conclusionsThis study demonstrates the promising potential of AI models in predicting CKD progression. However, further efforts are needed to optimize model performance, particularly in balancing sensitivity and specificity to ensure generalizability across diverse populations. Limitations of this study include the potential for overfitting in certain AI models due to imbalanced datasets. The high heterogeneity and the lack of standardized predictors limit the generalizability of findings across different populations.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceRenal Insufficiency, ChronicDisease ProgressionHumansPrognosisSensitivity and SpecificityAI-based prediction modelsartificial neural networkCKD progressionNephrology

Identifiers

PMID39663146
PMCPMC11636155

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.