Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42185463›Full record

ArticleNPJ digital medicine2026

Multi expert integrated algorithm for kidney biopsy triage.

Hae-Ryong Yun, Nak-Hoon Son, Gyubok Lee, Hyung Woo Kim, Hyoungnae Kim, Tae Ik Chang, Jung Tak Park, Seung Hyeok Han, Shin-Wook Kang, Tae-Hyun Yoo

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Hae-Ryong Yun *Department of Internal Medicine, Yongin Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Nak-Hoon Son *Department of Statistics, Keimyung University, Daegu, Republic of Korea.
Gyubok LeeGraduate School of AI, College of Engineering, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST), Daejeon, Korea.
Hyung Woo KimDepartment of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, Institute of Kidney Disease Research, Yonsei University, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Hyoungnae KimDivision of Nephrology, Department of Internal Medicine, Soonchunhyang University Seoul Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Tae Ik ChangDepartment of Internal Medicine, National Health Insurance Service Medical Center, Ilsan Hospital, Goyang, Gyeonggi-do, Republic of Korea.
Jung Tak ParkDepartment of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, Institute of Kidney Disease Research, Yonsei University, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Seung Hyeok HanDepartment of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, Institute of Kidney Disease Research, Yonsei University, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Shin-Wook KangDepartment of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, Institute of Kidney Disease Research, Yonsei University, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Tae-Hyun YooDepartment of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, Institute of Kidney Disease Research, Yonsei University, Seoul, Republic of Korea. yoosy0316@yuhs.ac.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

PMID42185463
PMCPMC13283210

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.