Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35959674›Full record

ArticleCirculation. Cardiovascular quality and outcomes2022

Maintaining a National Acute Kidney Injury Risk Prediction Model to Support Local Quality Benchmarking.

Sharon E Davis, Jeremiah R Brown, Chad Dorn, Dax Westerman, Richard J Solomon, Michael E Matheny

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Circulation. Cardiovascular quality and outcomes, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Emerging algorithmic bias: fairness drift as the next dimension of model maintenance and sustainability.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2025
    Article
  5. Sustainable deployment of clinical prediction tools-a 360° approach to model maintenance.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2024
    Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Sharon E DavisDepartments of Biomedical Informatics (S.E.D., C.D., D.W., M.E.M.), Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN.ORCID 0000-0003-0792-8867
Jeremiah R BrownDepartments of Epidemiology (J.R.B.), Dartmouth Geisel School of Medicine, Hanover, NH.ORCID 0000-0003-4512-9716
Chad DornDepartments of Biomedical Informatics (S.E.D., C.D., D.W., M.E.M.), Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN.ORCID 0000-0002-4886-6159
Dax WestermanDepartments of Biomedical Informatics (S.E.D., C.D., D.W., M.E.M.), Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN.ORCID 0000-0002-9547-7789
Richard J SolomonDepartment of Medicine, Larner College of Medicine, University of Vermont, Burlington (R.J.S.).
Michael E MathenyDepartments of Biomedical Informatics (S.E.D., C.D., D.W., M.E.M.), Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN.ORCID 0000-0003-3217-4147

Funding

IMPROVE-AKI: A Cluster-Randomized Trial of Team-Based Coaching Interventions to IMPROVE Acute Kidney InjuryR01DK113201 · NIDDK · DARTMOUTH COLLEGE · PI Jeremiah R Brown, MICHAEL E. MATHENY · 2018 to 2026
$5.1M
NIDDK NIH HHS R01 DK113201
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe utility of quality dashboards to inform decision-making and improve clinical outcomes is tightly linked to the accuracy of the information they provide and, in turn, accuracy of underlying prediction models. Despite recognition of the need to update prediction models to maintain accuracy over time, there is limited guidance on updating strategies. We compare predefined and surveillance-based updating strategies applied to a model supporting quality evaluations among US veterans.

methodsWe evaluated the performance of a US Department of Veterans Affairs-specific model for postcardiac catheterization acute kidney injury using routinely collected observational data over the 6 years following model development (n=90 295 procedures in 2013-2019). Predicted probabilities were generated from the original model, an annually retrained model, and a surveillance-based approach that monitored performance to inform the timing and method of updates. We evaluated how updating the national model impacted regional quality profiles. We compared observed-to-expected outcome ratios, where values above and below 1 indicated more and fewer adverse outcomes than expected, respectively.

resultsThe original model overpredicted risk at the national level (observed-to-expected outcome ratio, 0.75 [0.74-0.77]). Annual retraining updated the model 5×; surveillance-based updating retrained once and recalibrated twice. While both strategies improved performance, the surveillance-based approach provided superior calibration (observed-to-expected outcome ratio, 1.01 [0.99-1.03] versus 0.94 [0.92-0.96]). Overprediction by the original model led to optimistic quality assessments, incorrectly indicating most of the US Department of Veterans Affairs' 18 regions observed fewer acute kidney injury events than predicted. Both updating strategies revealed 16 regions performed as expected and 2 regions increasingly underperformed, having more acute kidney injury events than predicted.

conclusionsMiscalibrated clinical prediction models provide inaccurate pictures of performance across clinical units, and degrading calibration further complicates our understanding of quality. Updating strategies tailored to health system needs and capacity should be incorporated into model implementation plans to promote the utility and longevity of quality reporting tools.

Indexed as

Acute Kidney InjuryBenchmarkingData CollectionHumansacute kidney injurybenchmarkingmodels, statisticalsupervised machine learningveterans

Identifiers

PMID35959674
PMCPMC9388604

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.