Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30971285›Full record

ArticleJournal of translational medicine2019

Comparison and development of machine learning tools in the prediction of chronic kidney disease progression.

Jing Xiao, Ruifeng Ding, Xiulin Xu, Haochen Guan, Xinhui Feng, Tao Sun, Sibo Zhu, Zhibin Ye

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of translational medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 99 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
99citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
24.0field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

99 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 298 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Observational
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Observational
  20. Article

39 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Jing XiaoDepartment of Nephrology, Huadong Hospital Affiliated To Fudan University, Shanghai, 200040, China.
Ruifeng DingSchool of Medical Instrument and Food Engineering, University of Shanghai for Science and Technology, Shanghai, 200093, China.
Xiulin XuSchool of Medical Instrument and Food Engineering, University of Shanghai for Science and Technology, Shanghai, 200093, China.
Haochen GuanDepartment of Nephrology, Huadong Hospital Affiliated To Fudan University, Shanghai, 200040, China.
Xinhui FengDepartment of Nephrology, Huadong Hospital Affiliated To Fudan University, Shanghai, 200040, China.
Tao SunSchool of Medical Instrument and Food Engineering, University of Shanghai for Science and Technology, Shanghai, 200093, China.
Sibo ZhuMOE Key Laboratory of Contemporary Anthropology, School of Life Sciences, Fudan University, Shanghai, 200438, China. sibozhu@fudan.edu.cn.ORCID 0000-0003-4800-8987
Zhibin YeDepartment of Nephrology, Huadong Hospital Affiliated To Fudan University, Shanghai, 200040, China. yezhibin3@126.com.
Fudan University · CNUniversity of Shanghai for Science and Technology · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUrinary protein quantification is critical for assessing the severity of chronic kidney disease (CKD). However, the current procedure for determining the severity of CKD is completed through evaluating 24-h urinary protein, which is inconvenient during follow-up.

objectiveTo quickly predict the severity of CKD using more easily available demographic and blood biochemical features during follow-up, we developed and compared several predictive models using statistical, machine learning and neural network approaches.

methodsThe clinical and blood biochemical results from 551 patients with proteinuria were collected. Thirteen blood-derived tests and 5 demographic features were used as non-urinary clinical variables to predict the 24-h urinary protein outcome response. Nine predictive models were established and compared, including logistic regression, Elastic Net, lasso regression, ridge regression, support vector machine, random forest, XGBoost, neural network and k-nearest neighbor. The AU-ROC, sensitivity (recall), specificity, accuracy, log-loss and precision of each of the models were evaluated. The effect sizes of each variable were analysed and ranked.

resultsThe linear models including Elastic Net, lasso regression, ridge regression and logistic regression showed the highest overall predictive power, with an average AUC and a precision above 0.87 and 0.8, respectively. Logistic regression ranked first, reaching an AUC of 0.873, with a sensitivity and specificity of 0.83 and 0.82, respectively. The model with the highest sensitivity was Elastic Net (0.85), while XGBoost showed the highest specificity (0.83). In the effect size analyses, we identified that ALB, Scr, TG, LDL and EGFR had important impacts on the predictability of the models, while other predictors such as CRP, HDL and SNA were less important.

conclusionsBlood-derived tests could be applied as non-urinary predictors during outpatient follow-up. Features in routine blood tests, including ALB, Scr, TG, LDL and EGFR levels, showed predictive ability for CKD severity. The developed online tool can facilitate the prediction of proteinuria progress during follow-up in clinical practice.

Indexed as

Disease ProgressionMachine LearningAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overArea Under CurveFemaleHumansInternetMaleMiddle AgedRenal Insufficiency, ChronicReproducibility of ResultsROC CurveYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID30971285
PMCPMC6458616
OpenAlexW2945048168

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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 OpenQuestion graph.