ArticleNPJ digital medicine2026
Multi expert integrated algorithm for kidney biopsy triage.
Article in NPJ digital medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Evaluating the potential of ChatGPT as an educational decision-support tool for hemodialysis decision-making in nephrology training.Frontiers in 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Clinical decision-making often exhibits substantial inter-physician variability when evaluating identical patient data, limiting the reliability of conventional one data-one outcome clinical decision support systems. We developed and validated a Multi Expert Integrated Algorithm (MEIA) designed to preserve and integrate diverse expert decision patterns for kidney biopsy triage. The study included 9598 patients across three cohorts, comprising a developmental cohort of 8228 patients and two external validation cohorts. Three board-certified nephrologists independently annotated biopsy decisions, and expert-specific machine learning models were trained using identical feature sets to replicate each physician's labeling pattern. These models were integrated through a predefined majority voting framework. Individual models closely reproduced expert decisions in internal validation, while MEIA demonstrated strong performance (accuracy 95.3%, F1-score 84.4%). In external validation, MEIA achieved an AUC of 0.933, with significantly higher discrimination than Expert model C (P< 0.001) and comparable performance to Expert models A and B. SHAP analysis revealed heterogeneity in feature importance across experts. In a pathology-confirmed cohort, all MEIA-recommended cases demonstrated histopathological abnormalities. MEIA provides a structured framework for modeling expert variability; prospective validation is required to confirm clinical utility.
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.