ArticleBMC nephrology2026
Comparative performance of risk prediction models for kidney disease: an external validation using 0.5 million UK Biobank participants.
Article in BMC nephrology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the external validation performance of existing kidney disease risk prediction models for the general population, individuals with type 2 diabetes, and across various subgroups. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe identified and compared 16 risk prediction models for chronic kidney disease (CKD) or kidney failure from 3 recent systematic reviews (7 models for the whole population, 9 models specific for type 2 diabetes). We analysed 497,896 adults (age 38–73) in the UK Biobank data; of which 4·7% (n = 23,298) had type 2 diabetes. Models were evaluated by discrimination and calibration performance with subgroup analyses by age, sex, ethnicity and pre-existing hypertension.
resultsDuring a total follow-up of 5·95 million person-years (median: 12·2 years; IQR: 1·4), predictive models for people without diabetes exhibited fair-to-excellent discrimination performance (c-indices: 0·695-0·806) but severely overpredicted risk. The O’Seaghdha model demonstrated the best overall performance for discrimination (c-index: 0·806 [0·806-0·807]) and calibration (slope: 0·69, intercept: -0·011; Brier score: 0·03 [0·02,0·04]). Models including medications for diabetes showed superior performance. Discriminative performance was poorer for people with diabetes or hypertension. Severe miscalibration occurred for many models.
conclusionMost models demonstrated fair to excellent discrimination for CKD and good to excellent discrimination for kidney failure. Calibration performance was frequently suboptimal; most models substantially overpredicted CKD risk while underpredicting kidney failure risk, indicating that recalibration is warranted prior to clinical application. Model performance in individuals with diabetes or hypertension was poorer. Future CKD risk prediction model development should incorporate diabetes medication use to enhance discriminative capability.
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.