ArticleKidney international reports2019
Developing Biomarker Panels to Predict Progression of Acute Kidney Injury After Cardiac Surgery.
Article in Kidney international reports, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The efficacy of novel biomarkers for the early detection and management of acute kidney injury: A systematic review.PloS one · 2025Pooled it
- Modified furosemide responsiveness index and biomarkers for AKI progression and prognosis: a prospective observational study.Annals of intensive care · 2024Article
- Biomarkers: Promising and valuable tools towards diagnosis, prognosis and treatment of Covid-19 and other diseases.Heliyon · 2023Review
- Machine learning models for predicting acute kidney injury: a systematic review and critical appraisal.Clinical kidney journal · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionAcute kidney injury (AKI) is a frequent complication of cardiac surgery, but only a fraction of cardiac surgery patients that experience postoperative AKI have progression to more severe stages. Biomarkers that can distinguish patients that will experience progression of AKI are potentially useful for clinical care and/or the development of therapies.
methodsData come from a prospective cohort study of cardiac surgery patients; the analytic dataset contained data from 354 cardiac surgery patients meeting criteria for AKI following surgery. Candidate predictors were 38 biomarkers of kidney function, insult, or injury measured at the time of AKI diagnosis. The outcome was AKI progression, defined as worsening of AKI Network stage. We investigated combining biomarkers with Bayesian model averaging (BMA) and random forests of classification trees, with and without center transformation. For both approaches, we used resampling-based methods to avoid optimistic bias in our assessment of model performance.
resultsBMA yielded a combination of 3 biomarkers and an optimism-corrected estimated area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.75 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.68, 0.82). The random forests approach, which nominally uses all biomarkers, had an estimated AUC of 0.74 (95% CI: 0.66, 0.82). A second application of random forests applied to biomarker values after a center-specific transformation had an estimated AUC of 0.80 (95% CI: 0.72, 0.88).
conclusionThese findings suggest that the application of advanced statistical techniques to combine biomarkers offers only modest improvements over use of single biomarkers alone. This exemplifies a common experience in biomarker research: combinations of modestly performing biomarkers often also have modest performance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.