ArticleFrontiers in nutrition2026
Interpretable bioimpedance-based modeling of body composition and metabolic indices related to physical function in maintenance hemodialysis patients.
Article in Frontiers in nutrition, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: In maintenance hemodialysis (MHD) patients, muscle wasting and altered body composition are major determinants of reduced physical function. This study aimed to identify the key body composition features associated with four physical-function-related indices-Basal Metabolic Rate (BMR), Fat-Free Mass (FFM), Skeletal Muscle Mass (SMM), and Percentage of Body Fat (PBF)-and to evaluate whether ensemble regression models can estimate these indices from routine bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) data. Methods: Ensemble regression models were constructed using BIA-derived indicators to estimate BMR, FFM, SMM, and PBF. The SHAP algorithm was employed to assess feature importance. Individual regression models (LR, DT, SVR, GBR, Adaboost, and KNN) were compared with ensemble models (RF, ET, and LGBM) using Results: SHAP analysis identified Total Body Water (TBW) and height as the most significant predictors across all four indices, followed by Intracellular Water (ICW), Extracellular Water (ECW), minerals, and body weight. Ensemble models consistently outperformed individual models. LGBM achieved the highest performance (e.g., Conclusion: Ensemble learning models, particularly LGBM, demonstrated high apparent accuracy in estimating the four indices. SHAP analysis consistently identified TBW and height as dominant contributors. We caution that this predictive strength partly reflects expected physiological relationships between body water, body size, and these indices, rather than novel clinical insights. The practical value lies in providing an interpretable body composition profile that, if externally validated, may help identify MHD patients at risk of muscle wasting and poor functional status. Because this study used only internal validation and had no independent external validation cohort, clinical application requires validation against directly measured functional outcomes in larger, multicenter, longitudinal cohorts, with body composition standardized to a fixed point in the dialysis cycle.
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.