Observational studyScientific reports2025
Construction of a machine learning-based interpretable prediction model for acute kidney injury in hospitalized patients.
Observational study in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- From black box to glass box: explainable artificial intelligence for acute kidney injury prediction-a scoping review and the GLASS-AKI translational framework proposal.International urology and nephrology · 2026Review
- Clinical Artificial Intelligence Agents in Nephrology: From Prediction to Action Through Workflow-Native Intelligence-A Roadmap for Workflow-Integrated Care.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Transforming nephrology through artificial intelligence: a state-of-the-art roadmap for clinical integration.Clinical kidney journal · 2026Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In this observational study, we used data from 59,936 hospitalized adults to construct a model. For the models constructed with all 53 variables, all five models achieved acceptable performance with the validation cohort, with the extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost) model showing the best predictive efficacy and stability (area under the curve (AUC), 0.9301). For the simpler models constructed with 39 significant variables screened by the random forest recursive feature elimination method, the XGBoost model also had the best performance (AUC, 0.9357). All the models showed significant net returns according to decision analysis curves, and the XGBoost model achieved the optimal results. In addition, the Shapley additive explanation (SHAP) importance matrices revealed that uric acid, colloidal solution, first creatinine value on admission, pulse and albumin represented the top five most important variables for both modeling strategies. With the external validation cohort based on 4022 hospitalized patients, the performance of all models declined, among which the Support vector machine (SVM) model showed the best predictive efficacy (AUC, 0.8230 and 0.8329), followed by the XGBoost model (0.8124 and 0.8316). Thus, our model can predict the occurrence and risk of acute kidney injury (AKI) up to 48 h in advance, enabling clinicians to assess the risk of AKI in hospitalized patients more accurately and intuitively and to develop necessary AKI management strategies.
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.