ArticleKidney research and clinical practice2024
Machine learning-based 2-year risk prediction tool in immunoglobulin A nephropathy.
Article in Kidney research and clinical practice, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Risk prediction in IgA nephropathy: from conventional models to machine learning, deep learning, and precision nephrology.Renal failure · 2026Review
- Evolving therapeutic landscape of immunoglobulin A nephropathy: targeted immune pathways and novel therapies.Kidney research and clinical practice · 2026Article
- Novel therapies improve prognosis of IgAN and limit the applicability of the International IgA Nephropathy Prediction Tool.Clinical kidney journal · 2025Article
- Brief review for "Machine learning-based 2-year risk prediction tool in immunoglobulin A nephropathy".Kidney research and clinical practice · 2024Article
- Machine learning-based diagnosis and prognosis of IgAN: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Heliyon · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to develop a machine learning-based 2-year risk prediction model for early identification of patients with rapid progressive immunoglobulin A nephropathy (IgAN). We also assessed the model's performance to predict the long-term kidney-related outcome of patients.
methodsA retrospective cohort of 1,301 patients with biopsy-proven IgAN from two tertiary hospitals was used to derive and externally validate a random forest-based prediction model predicting primary outcome (30% decline in estimated glomerular filtration rate from baseline or end-stage kidney disease requiring renal replacement therapy) and secondary outcome (improvement of proteinuria) within 2 years after kidney biopsy.
resultsFor the 2-year prediction of primary outcomes, precision, recall, area-under-the-curve, precision-recall-curve, F1, and Brier score were 0.259, 0.875, 0.771, 0.242, 0.400, and 0.309, respectively. The values for the secondary outcome were 0.904, 0.971, 0.694, 0.903, 0.955, and 0.113, respectively. From Shapley Additive exPlanations analysis, the most informative feature identifying both outcomes was baseline proteinuria. When Kaplan-Meier analysis for 10-year kidney outcome risk was performed with three groups by predicting probabilities derived from the 2-year primary outcome prediction model (low, moderate, and high), high (hazard ratio [HR], 13.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 9.52-17.77) and moderate (HR, 12.90; 95% CI, 9.92-16.76) groups showed higher risks compared with the low group. From the 2-year secondary outcome prediction model, low (HR, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.42-1.95) and moderate (HR, 1.42; 95% CI, 0.99-2.03) groups were at greater risk for 10-year prognosis than the high group.
conclusionOur machine learning-based 2-year risk prediction models for the progression of IgAN showed reliable performance and effectively predicted long-term kidney outcome.
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.