ArticleBMC medical research methodology2024
Predicting kidney graft function and failure among kidney transplant recipients.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Association of remnant cholesterol with long-term outcomes in kidney transplant recipients: a retrospective cohort study.Lipids in health and disease · 2026Article
- Randomized trial of electronic health record implemented AI risk prediction in kidney transplant care.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundGraft loss is a major health concern for kidney transplant (KTx) recipients. It is of clinical interest to develop a prognostic model for both graft function, quantified by estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), and the risk of graft failure. Additionally, the model should be dynamic in the sense that it adapts to accumulating longitudinal information, including time-varying at-risk population, predictor-outcome association, and clinical history. Finally, the model should also properly account for the competing risk by death with a functioning graft. A model with the features above is not yet available in the literature and is the focus of this research.
methodsWe built and internally validated a prediction model on 3,893 patients from the Wisconsin Allograft Recipient Database (WisARD) who had a functioning graft 6 months after kidney transplantation. The landmark analysis approach was used to build a proof-of-concept dynamic prediction model to address the aforementioned methodological issues: the prediction of graft failure, accounted for competing risk of death, as well as the future eGFR value, are updated at each post-transplant time. We used 21 predictors including recipient characteristics, donor characteristics, transplant-related and post-transplant factors, longitudinal eGFR, hospitalization, and rejection history. A sensitivity analysis explored a less conservative variable selection rule that resulted in a more parsimonious model with reduced predictors.
resultsFor prediction up to the next 1 to 5 years, the model achieved high accuracy in predicting graft failure, with the AUC between 0.80 and 0.95, and moderately high accuracy in predicting eGFR, with the root mean squared error between 10 and 18 mL/min/1.73m2 and 70%-90% of predicted eGFR falling within 30% of the observed eGFR. The model demonstrated substantial accuracy improvement compared to a conventional prediction model that used only baseline predictors.
conclusionThe model outperformed conventional prediction model that used only baseline predictors. It is a useful tool for patient counseling and clinical management of KTx and is currently available as a web app.
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.