Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35872786›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in medicine2022

Deep Learning Model for Predicting Intradialytic Hypotension Without Privacy Infringement: A Retrospective Two-Center Study.

Hyung Woo Kim, Seok-Jae Heo, Minseok Kim, Jakyung Lee, Keun Hyung Park, Gongmyung Lee, Song In Baeg, Young Eun Kwon, Hye Min Choi, Dong-Jin Oh and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Advances in Human-Centered Care to Address Contemporary Unmet Needs in Chronic Dialysis.International journal of nephrology and renovascular disease · 2024
    Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
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.

Hyung Woo KimDepartment of Internal Medicine, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea.
Seok-Jae HeoDepartment of Biostatistics and Computing, Yonsei University Graduate School, Seoul, South Korea.
Minseok KimDepartment of Biostatistics and Computing, Yonsei University Graduate School, Seoul, South Korea.
Jakyung LeeDepartment of Biostatistics and Computing, Yonsei University Graduate School, Seoul, South Korea.
Keun Hyung ParkDepartment of Internal Medicine, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea.
Gongmyung LeeDepartment of Internal Medicine, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea.
Song In BaegDepartment of Internal Medicine, Myongji Hospital, Hanyang University College of Medicine, Goyang, South Korea.
Young Eun KwonDepartment of Internal Medicine, Myongji Hospital, Hanyang University College of Medicine, Goyang, South Korea.
Hye Min ChoiDepartment of Internal Medicine, Myongji Hospital, Hanyang University College of Medicine, Goyang, South Korea.
Dong-Jin OhDepartment of Internal Medicine, Myongji Hospital, Hanyang University College of Medicine, Goyang, South Korea.
Chung-Mo NamDepartment of Biostatistics and Computing, Yonsei University Graduate School, Seoul, South Korea.
Beom Seok KimDepartment of Internal Medicine, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: Previously developed Intradialytic hypotension (IDH) prediction models utilize clinical variables with potential privacy protection issues. We developed an IDH prediction model using minimal variables, without the risk of privacy infringement. Methods: Unidentifiable data from 63,640 hemodialysis sessions (26,746 of 79 patients for internal validation, 36,894 of 255 patients for external validation) from two Korean hospital hemodialysis databases were finally analyzed, using three IDH definitions: (1) systolic blood pressure (SBP) nadir <90 mmHg (Nadir90); (2) SBP decrease ≥20 mmHg from baseline (Fall20); and (3) SBP decrease ≥20 mmHg and/or mean arterial pressure decrease ≥10 mmHg (Fall20/MAP10). The developed models use 30 min information to predict an IDH event in the following 10 min window. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUROCs) and precision-recall curves were used to compare machine learning and deep learning models by logistic regression, XGBoost, and convolutional neural networks. Results: Among 344,714 segments, 9,154 (2.7%), 134,988 (39.2%), and 149,674 (43.4%) IDH events occurred according to three different IDH definitions (Nadir90, Fall20, and Fall20/MAP10, respectively). Compared with models including logistic regression, random forest, and XGBoost, the deep learning model achieved the best performance in predicting IDH (AUROCs: Nadir90, 0.905; Fall20, 0.864; Fall20/MAP10, 0.863) only using measurements from hemodialysis machine during dialysis session. Conclusions: The deep learning model performed well only using monitoring measurement of hemodialysis machine in predicting IDH without any personal information that could risk privacy infringement.

Indexed as

deep learninghemodialysisintradialytic hypotensionmachine learningprivacy protection

Identifiers

PMID35872786
PMCPMC9300869

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.