ReviewMedizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin2024
[Artificial intelligence and acute kidney injury].
Review in Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin, 2024. 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.
- Contemporary methods for ancient problems: AI for AKI.Intensive care medicine experimental · 2026Article
- [Recent developments in acute kidney injury : Definition, biomarkers, subphenotypes, and management].Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin · 2024Review
- [Artificial intelligence in intensive care medicine].Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Digitalization is increasingly finding its way into intensive care units and with it artificial intelligence (AI) for critically ill patients. One promising area for the use of AI is in the field of acute kidney injury (AKI). The use of AI is primarily focused on the prediction of AKI, but further approaches are also being used to classify existing AKI into different phenotypes. Different AI models are used for prediction. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve values (AUROC) achieved with these models vary and are influenced by several factors, such as the prediction time and the definition of AKI. Most models have an AUROC between 0.650 and 0.900, with lower values for predictions further into the future and when applying Acute Kidney Injury Network (AKIN) instead of KDIGO criteria. Classification into phenotypes already makes it possible to categorize patients into groups with different risks of mortality or requirement of renal replacement therapy (RRT), but the etiologies or therapeutic consequences derived from this are still lacking. However, all the models suffer from AI-specific shortcomings. The use of large databases does not make it possible to promptly include recent changes in therapy and the implementation of new biomarkers in a relevant proportion. For this reason, serum creatinine and urinary output, with their known limitations, dominate current AI models for prediction impairing the performance of the current models. On the other hand, the increasingly complex models no longer allow physicians to understand the basis on which the warning of a threatening AKI is calculated and subsequent initiation of therapy should take place. The successful use of AIs in routine clinical practice will be highly determined by the trust of the physicians in the systems and overcoming the aforementioned weaknesses. However, the clinician will remain irreplaceable as the decisive authority for critically ill patients by combining measurable and nonmeasurable parameters.
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.