Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35031637›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2022

Machine learning prediction model of acute kidney injury after percutaneous coronary intervention.

Toshiki Kuno, Takahisa Mikami, Yuki Sahashi, Yohei Numasawa, Masahiro Suzuki, Shigetaka Noma, Keiichi Fukuda, Shun Kohsaka

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

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

8 authors.

Toshiki KunoDivision of Cardiology, Montefiore Medical Center, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, 111 East 210th St, Bronx, NY, 10467-2401, USA. tkuno@montefiore.org.
Takahisa MikamiDepartment of Neurology, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA.
Yuki SahashiDepartment of Cardiovascular Medicine, Gifu Heart Center, Gifu, Japan.
Yohei NumasawaDepartment of Cardiology, Japanese Red Cross Ashikaga Hospital, Ashikaga, Japan.
Masahiro SuzukiDepartment of Cardiology, Saitama National Hospital, Wako, Japan.
Shigetaka NomaDepartment of Cardiology, Saiseikai Utsunomiya Hospital, Utsunomiya, Japan.
Keiichi FukudaDepartment of Cardiology, Keio University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan.
Shun KohsakaDepartment of Cardiology, Keio University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan.

Funding

Japan Society for the Promotion of Science Nos. 20H03915
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Acute kidney injury (AKI) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is associated with a significant risk of morbidity and mortality. The traditional risk model provided by the National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR) is useful for predicting the preprocedural risk of AKI, although the scoring system requires a number of clinical contents. We sought to examine whether machine learning (ML) techniques could predict AKI with fewer NCDR-AKI risk model variables within a comparable PCI database in Japan. We evaluated 19,222 consecutive patients undergoing PCI between 2008 and 2019 in a Japanese multicenter registry. AKI was defined as an absolute or a relative increase in serum creatinine of 0.3 mg/dL or 50%. The data were split into training (N = 16,644; 2008-2017) and testing datasets (N = 2578; 2017-2019). The area under the curve (AUC) was calculated using the light gradient boosting model (GBM) with selected variables by Lasso and SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) methods among 12 traditional variables, excluding the use of an intra-aortic balloon pump, since its use was considered operator-dependent. The incidence of AKI was 9.4% in the cohort. Lasso and SHAP methods demonstrated that seven variables (age, eGFR, preprocedural hemoglobin, ST-elevation myocardial infarction, non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction/unstable angina, heart failure symptoms, and cardiogenic shock) were pertinent. AUC calculated by the light GBM with seven variables had a performance similar to that of the conventional logistic regression prediction model that included 12 variables (light GBM, AUC [training/testing datasets]: 0.779/0.772; logistic regression, AUC [training/testing datasets]: 0.797/0.755). The AKI risk model after PCI using ML enabled adequate risk quantification with fewer variables. ML techniques may aid in enhancing the international use of validated risk models.

Indexed as

Machine LearningAcute Kidney InjuryAgedAged, 80 and overArea Under CurveFemaleForecastingHumansJapanLogistic ModelsMaleMiddle AgedModels, StatisticalPercutaneous Coronary InterventionPostoperative ComplicationsRegistries

Identifiers

PMID35031637
PMCPMC8760264

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.