ReviewJournal of the American Society of Nephrology : JASN2022
Artificial Intelligence You Can Trust: What Matters Beyond Performance When Applying Artificial Intelligence to Renal Histopathology?
Review in Journal of the American Society of Nephrology : JASN, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial Intelligence in Kidney Transplant Pathology: Current Evidence, Limitations, and Relevance to the Banff Framework.Kidney international reports · 2026Review
- Prospective validation and real-time implementation of an automated machine learning postoperative mortality prediction model.British journal of anaesthesia · 2026Article
- Transforming nephrology through artificial intelligence: a state-of-the-art roadmap for clinical integration.Clinical kidney journal · 2026Review
- AI-based pathomics in kidney diseases: progress and application.Renal failure · 2025Review
- Measurement Matters: A Metrological Approach to Renal Preimplantation Biopsy Evaluation to Address Uncertainty in Organ Selection.Transplantation direct · 2024Article
- Artificial Intelligence Advances in Transplant Pathology.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Artificial Intelligence in the Pathology of Gastric Cancer.Journal of gastric cancer · 2023Review
- Second Opinion in the Italian Organ Procurement Transplantation: The Pathologist Is In.Clinics and practice · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Although still in its infancy, artificial intelligence (AI) analysis of kidney biopsy images is anticipated to become an integral aspect of renal histopathology. As these systems are developed, the focus will understandably be on developing ever more accurate models, but successful translation to the clinic will also depend upon other characteristics of the system.In the extreme, deployment of highly performant but "black box" AI is fraught with risk, and high-profile errors could damage future trust in the technology. Furthermore, a major factor determining whether new systems are adopted in clinical settings is whether they are "trusted" by clinicians. Key to unlocking trust will be designing platforms optimized for intuitive human-AI interactions and ensuring that, where judgment is required to resolve ambiguous areas of assessment, the workings of the AI image classifier are understandable to the human observer. Therefore, determining the optimal design for AI systems depends on factors beyond performance, with considerations of goals, interpretability, and safety constraining many design and engineering choices.In this article, we explore challenges that arise in the application of AI to renal histopathology, and consider areas where choices around model architecture, training strategy, and workflow design may be influenced by factors beyond the final performance metrics of the system.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.