Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33861200›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2021

Real-Time Clinical Decision Support Based on Recurrent Neural Networks for In-Hospital Acute Kidney Injury: External Validation and Model Interpretation.

Kipyo Kim, Hyeonsik Yang, Jinyeong Yi, Hyung-Eun Son, Ji-Young Ryu, Yong Chul Kim, Jong Cheol Jeong, Ho Jun Chin, Ki Young Na, Dong-Wan Chae and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

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

12 authors.

Kipyo Kim *Division of Nephrology and Hypertension, Department of Internal Medicine, Inha University College of Medicine, Incheon, Republic of Korea.ORCID 0000-0003-4166-1801
Hyeonsik Yang *Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Seoul National University, Seoul, Republic of Korea.ORCID 0000-0003-0368-8413
Jinyeong YiDepartment of Health Science and Technology, Graduate School of Convergence Science and Technology, Seoul National University, Seoul, Republic of Korea.ORCID 0000-0003-1478-1605
Hyung-Eun SonDepartment of Internal Medicine, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seongnam, Republic of Korea.ORCID 0000-0002-8719-3823
Ji-Young RyuDepartment of Internal Medicine, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seongnam, Republic of Korea.ORCID 0000-0003-4134-1007
Yong Chul KimDepartment of Internal Medicine, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea.ORCID 0000-0003-3215-8681
Jong Cheol JeongDepartment of Internal Medicine, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seongnam, Republic of Korea.ORCID 0000-0003-0301-7644
Ho Jun ChinDepartment of Internal Medicine, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seongnam, Republic of Korea.ORCID 0000-0002-3710-0190
Ki Young NaDepartment of Internal Medicine, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seongnam, Republic of Korea.ORCID 0000-0002-8872-8236
Dong-Wan ChaeDepartment of Internal Medicine, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seongnam, Republic of Korea.ORCID 0000-0001-9401-892X
Seung Seok HanDepartment of Internal Medicine, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea.ORCID 0000-0003-0137-5261
Sejoong KimDepartment of Internal Medicine, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seongnam, Republic of Korea.ORCID 0000-0002-7238-9962

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAcute kidney injury (AKI) is commonly encountered in clinical practice and is associated with poor patient outcomes and increased health care costs. Despite it posing significant challenges for clinicians, effective measures for AKI prediction and prevention are lacking. Previously published AKI prediction models mostly have a simple design without external validation. Furthermore, little is known about the process of linking model output and clinical decisions due to the black-box nature of neural network models.

objectiveWe aimed to present an externally validated recurrent neural network (RNN)-based continuous prediction model for in-hospital AKI and show applicable model interpretations in relation to clinical decision support.

methodsStudy populations were all patients aged 18 years or older who were hospitalized for more than 48 hours between 2013 and 2017 in 2 tertiary hospitals in Korea (Seoul National University Bundang Hospital and Seoul National University Hospital). All demographic data, laboratory values, vital signs, and clinical conditions of patients were obtained from electronic health records of each hospital. We developed 2-stage hierarchical prediction models (model 1 and model 2) using RNN algorithms. The outcome variable for model 1 was the occurrence of AKI within 7 days from the present. Model 2 predicted the future trajectory of creatinine values up to 72 hours. The performance of each developed model was evaluated using the internal and external validation data sets. For the explainability of our models, different model-agnostic interpretation methods were used, including Shapley Additive Explanations, partial dependence plots, individual conditional expectation, and accumulated local effects plots.

resultsWe included 69,081 patients in the training, 7675 in the internal validation, and 72,352 in the external validation cohorts for model development after excluding cases with missing data and those with an estimated glomerular filtration rate less than 15 mL/min/1.73 m2 or end-stage kidney disease. Model 1 predicted any AKI development with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.88 (internal validation) and 0.84 (external validation), and stage 2 or higher AKI development with an AUC of 0.93 (internal validation) and 0.90 (external validation). Model 2 predicted the future creatinine values within 3 days with mean-squared errors of 0.04-0.09 for patients with higher risks of AKI and 0.03-0.08 for those with lower risks. Based on the developed models, we showed AKI probability according to feature values in total patients and each individual with partial dependence, accumulated local effects, and individual conditional expectation plots. We also estimated the effects of feature modifications such as nephrotoxic drug discontinuation on future creatinine levels.

conclusionsWe developed and externally validated a continuous AKI prediction model using RNN algorithms. Our model could provide real-time assessment of future AKI occurrences and individualized risk factors for AKI in general inpatient cohorts; thus, we suggest approaches to support clinical decisions based on prediction models for in-hospital AKI.

Indexed as

Acute Kidney InjuryDecision Support Systems, ClinicalHospitals, UniversityHumansNeural Networks, ComputerRisk AssessmentRisk Factorsacute kidney injuryexternal validationinternal validationkidneyneural networksprediction modelrecurrent neural network

Identifiers

PMID33861200
PMCPMC8087972

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.