ArticleInternational urology and nephrology2021
Improving glomerular filtration rate estimation by semi-supervised learning: a development and external validation study.
Article in International urology and nephrology, 2021. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAccurate estimating glomerular filtration rate (GFR) is crucial both in clinical practice and epidemiological survey. We incorporated semi-supervised learning technology to improve GFR estimation performance.
methodsAASK [African American Study of Kidney Disease and Hypertension], CRIC [Chronic Renal Insufficiency Cohort] and DCCT [Diabetes Control and Complications Trial] studies were pooled together for model development, whereas MDRD [Modification of Diet in Renal Disease] and CRISP [Consortium for Radiological Imaging Studies of Polycystic Kidney Disease] studies for model external validation. A total of seven variables (Serum creatinine, Age, Sex, Black race, Diabetes status, Hypertension and Body Mass Index) were included as independent variables, while the outcome variable GFR was measured as the urinary clearance of
resultsIn each independent variables combination, the semi-supervised models consistently achieved superior results in all three performance indicators compared with corresponding revised CKD-EPI equations in the external validation data set. Furthermore, compared with revised four-variable CKD-EPI equation, the seven-variable semi-supervised model performed less biased (mean of difference: 0.03 [- 0.28, 0.34] vs 1.53 [1.28, 1.85], P < 0.001), more precise (interquartile range of difference: 7.94 [7.37, 8.50] vs 8.28 [7.76, 8.83], P = 0.1) and accurate (P30: 88.9% [87.4%, 90.2%] vs 86.0% [84.4%, 87.4%], P < 0.001.
conclusionsThe superior performance of the semi-supervised models during head-to-head comparisons supported the hypothesis that semi-supervised learning technology could improve GFR estimation performance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
33710531What 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.