Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36381375›Full record

ArticleClinical kidney journal2022

Machine learning models for predicting acute kidney injury: a systematic review and critical appraisal.

Iacopo Vagliano, Nicholas C Chesnaye, Jan Hendrik Leopold, Kitty J Jager, Ameen Abu-Hanna, Martijn C Schut

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical kidney journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
7.3field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

31 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 53 citations in OpenAlex.

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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Iacopo VaglianoDeptartment of Medical Informatics, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3066-9464
Nicholas C ChesnayeERA Registry, Department of Medical Informatics, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Jan Hendrik LeopoldDeptartment of Medical Informatics, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Kitty J JagerERA Registry, Department of Medical Informatics, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Ameen Abu-HannaDeptartment of Medical Informatics, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Martijn C SchutDeptartment of Medical Informatics, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Amsterdam University Medical Centers · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The number of studies applying machine learning (ML) to predict acute kidney injury (AKI) has grown steadily over the past decade. We assess and critically appraise the state of the art in ML models for AKI prediction, considering performance, methodological soundness, and applicability. Methods: We searched PubMed and ArXiv, extracted data, and critically appraised studies based on the Transparent Reporting of a Multivariable Prediction Model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis (TRIPOD), Checklist for Critical Appraisal and Data Extraction for Systematic Reviews of Prediction Modelling Studies (CHARMS), and Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST) guidelines. Results: Forty-six studies from 3166 titles were included. Thirty-eight studies developed a model, five developed and externally validated one, and three studies externally validated one. Flexible ML methods were used more often than deep learning, although the latter was common with temporal variables and text as predictors. Predictive performance showed an area under receiver operating curves ranging from 0.49 to 0.99. Our critical appraisal identified a high risk of bias in 39 studies. Some studies lacked internal validation, whereas external validation and interpretability of results were rarely considered. Fifteen studies focused on AKI prediction in the intensive care setting, and the US-derived Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care (MIMIC) data set was commonly used. Reproducibility was limited as data and code were usually unavailable. Conclusions: Flexible ML methods are popular for the prediction of AKI, although more complex models based on deep learning are emerging. Our critical appraisal identified a high risk of bias in most models: Studies should use calibration measures and external validation more often, improve model interpretability, and share data and code to improve reproducibility.

Indexed as

acute kidney injuryclinical prediction modelscritical appraisalmachine learningsystematic review

Identifiers

PMID36381375
PMCPMC9664575
OpenAlexW4289519525

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.