Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36987687›Full record

SynthesisBJS open2023

Machine learning models in predicting graft survival in kidney transplantation: meta-analysis.

Bharadhwaj Ravindhran, Pankaj Chandak, Nicole Schafer, Kaushal Kundalia, Woochan Hwang, Savvas Antoniadis, Usman Haroon, Rhana Hassan Zakri

Open access · goldFull text readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BJS open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
8.1field-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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 32 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Optimizing kidney allocation: challenges and solutions.Current opinion in organ transplantation · 2025
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Bharadhwaj RavindhranDepartment of Renal Transplantation, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0778-2191
Pankaj ChandakDepartment of Renal Transplantation, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6873-5965
Nicole SchaferDepartment of Renal Transplantation, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Kaushal KundaliaDepartment of Renal Transplantation, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Woochan HwangDepartment of Renal Transplantation, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Savvas AntoniadisDepartment of Renal Transplantation, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Usman HaroonDepartment of Renal Transplantation, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-6690-9637
Rhana Hassan ZakriDepartment of Renal Transplantation, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust · GBKing's College London · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe variations in outcome and frequent occurrence of kidney allograft failure continue to pose important clinical and research challenges despite recent advances in kidney transplantation. The aim of this systematic review was to examine the current application of machine learning models in kidney transplantation and perform a meta-analysis of these models in the prediction of graft survival.

methodsThis review was registered with the PROSPERO database (CRD42021247469) and all peer-reviewed original articles that reported machine learning model-based prediction of graft survival were included. Quality assessment was performed by the criteria defined by Qiao and risk-of-bias assessment was performed using the PROBAST tool. The diagnostic performance of the meta-analysis was assessed by a meta-analysis of the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve and a hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic plot.

resultsA total of 31 studies met the inclusion criteria for the review and 27 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Twenty-nine different machine learning models were used to predict graft survival in the included studies. Nine studies compared the predictive performance of machine learning models with traditional regression methods. Five studies had a high risk of bias and three studies had an unclear risk of bias. The area under the hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.82 and the summary sensitivity and specificity of machine learning-based models were 0.81 (95 per cent c.i. 0.76 to 0.86) and 0.81 (95 per cent c.i. 0.74 to 0.86) respectively for the overall model. The diagnostic odds ratio for the overall model was 18.24 (95 per cent c.i. 11.00 to 30.16) and 29.27 (95 per cent c.i. 13.22 to 44.46) based on the sensitivity analyses.

conclusionPrediction models using machine learning methods may improve the prediction of outcomes after kidney transplantation by the integration of the vast amounts of non-linear data.

Indexed as

Kidney TransplantationRenal InsufficiencyGraft SurvivalHumansMachine LearningROC CurveSensitivity and Specificity

Identifiers

PMID36987687
PMCPMC10050937
OpenAlexW4361195901

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
measurements read75
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.