ArticleRenal failure2023
Prognostic prediction of idiopathic membranous nephropathy using interpretable machine learning.
Article in Renal failure, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Predictive value of CD44 in membranous nephropathy with focal segmental glomerular sclerosis lesions treated with calcineurin inhibitors.Renal failure · 2026Article
- Machine learning prediction of childhood nephrotic syndrome outcomes.Pediatric nephrology (Berlin, Germany) · 2026Observational
- Prognostic Stratification in Primary Glomerulonephritis: Integrating Histology, Biomarkers, and Risk Prediction Models.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEstablished prognostic models of idiopathic membranous nephropathy (IMN) were limited to traditional modeling methods and did not comprehensively consider clinical and pathological patient data. Based on the electronic medical record (EMR) system, machine learning (ML) was used to construct a risk prediction model for the prognosis of IMN.
methodsData from 418 patients with IMN were diagnosed by renal biopsy at the Fifth Clinical Medical College of Shanxi Medical University. Fifty-nine medical features of the patients could be obtained from EMR, and prediction models were established based on five ML algorithms. The area under the curve, recall rate, accuracy, and F1 were used to evaluate and compare the performances of the models. Shapley additive explanation (SHAP) was used to explain the results of the best-performing model.
resultsOne hundred and seventeen patients (28.0%) with IMN experienced adverse events, 28 of them had compound outcomes (ESRD or double serum creatinine (SCr)), and 89 had relapsed. The gradient boosting machine (LightGBM) model had the best performance, with the highest AUC (0.892 ± 0.052, 95% CI 0.840-0.945), accuracy (0.909 ± 0.016), recall (0.741 ± 0.092), precision (0.906 ± 0.027), and F1 (0.905 ± 0.020). Recursive feature elimination with random forest and SHAP plots based on LightGBM showed that anti-phospholipase A2 receptor (anti-PLA2R), immunohistochemical immunoglobulin G4 (IHC IgG4), D-dimer (D-DIMER), triglyceride (TG), serum albumin (ALB), aspartate transaminase (AST), β2-microglobulin (BMG), SCr, and fasting plasma glucose (FPG) were important risk factors for the prognosis of IMN. Increased risk of adverse events in IMN patients was correlated with high anti-PLA2R and low IHC IgG4.
conclusionsThis study established a risk prediction model for the prognosis of IMN using ML based on clinical and pathological patient data. The LightGBM model may become a tool for personalized management of IMN patients.
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.