ArticleKidney medicine2026
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Artificial Intelligence-Driven Risk Stratification in Patients With Diabetic Kidney Disease in the US Veterans Population.
Article in Kidney medicine, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Rationale & Objective: Efficient risk stratification is essential to optimize care and allocate resources for treatment of diabetic kidney disease (DKD). This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of an artificial intelligence-driven in vitro kidney disease risk assay (AIKD). Study Design: Cost-effectiveness analysis using a hybrid model, combining a decision tree followed by a Markov model. Setting & Population: Patients with early-stage DKD receiving care within the US Veterans Health Administration health care system. Interventions: Risk stratification using AIKD versus Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) standard of care (SoC). Outcomes: Five-year health care costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Model Perspective & Timeframe: The decision tree delineated clinical pathways based on the prevalence of progressive decline in kidney function and risk stratification performance of AIKD versus KDIGO. The subsequent Markov model simulated DKD stage transitions across the underlying risk-treatment pathways. Model inputs included test performance characteristics, risk prevalence, transition probabilities, costs, and utilities. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses assessed uncertainty. The analysis was conducted from the perspective of the Veterans Health Administration health care system over a 5-year time horizon. Results: AIKD-guided care resulted in a total cost of $146,437 and 2.8277 QALYs, compared with $145,120 and 2.8164 QALYs for the SoC arm. The ICER for AIKD relative to SoC was $116,349 per QALY gained. One-way sensitivity analysis showed that the sensitivity and specificity of AIKD and SoC, as well as the prevalence of underlying risk of progressive decline in kidney function, were the most influential inputs affecting the ICER. From the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, AIKD has 69% likelihood of being accepted at the conventional willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 per QALY gained. Limitations: Model assumptions regarding risk stratification performance and long-term treatment effects may limit generalizability. Conclusions: AIKD is cost-effective compared to KDIGO for patients with early-stage DKD. Its adoption could improve health outcomes and support efficient health care resource utilization management.
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.