ArticleJournal of nephrology2024
First experiences with machine learning predictions of accelerated declining eGFR slope of living kidney donors 3 years after donation.
Article in Journal of nephrology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Prediction of estimated glomerular filtration rate slope and kidney prognosis of patients with chronic kidney disease.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- The Use of Machine Learning in the Diagnosis of Kidney Allograft Rejection: Current Knowledge and Applications.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Artificial intelligence for forecasting live donor kidney function.Journal of nephrology · 2024Article
- Revisiting pre-transplant preparation to optimize long-term kidney transplant outcomes.Journal of nephrology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLiving kidney donors are screened pre-donation to estimate the risk of end-stage kidney disease (ESKD). We evaluate Machine Learning (ML) to predict the progression of kidney function deterioration over time using the estimated GFR (eGFR) slope as the target variable.
methodsWe included 238 living kidney donors who underwent donor nephrectomy. We divided the dataset based on the eGFR slope in the third follow-up year, resulting in 185 donors with an average eGFR slope and 53 donors with an accelerated declining eGFR-slope. We trained three Machine Learning-models (Random Forest [RF], Extreme Gradient Boosting [XG], Support Vector Machine [SVM]) and Logistic Regression (LR) for predictions. Predefined data subsets served for training to explore whether parameters of an ESKD risk score alone suffice or additional clinical and time-zero biopsy parameters enhance predictions. Machine learning-driven feature selection identified the best predictive parameters.
resultsNone of the four models classified the eGFR slope with an AUC greater than 0.6 or an F1 score surpassing 0.41 despite training on different data subsets. Following machine learning-driven feature selection and subsequent retraining on these selected features, random forest and extreme gradient boosting outperformed other models, achieving an AUC of 0.66 and an F1 score of 0.44. After feature selection, two predictive donor attributes consistently appeared in all models: smoking-related features and glomerulitis of the Banff Lesion Score.
conclusionsTraining machine learning-models with distinct predefined data subsets yielded unsatisfactory results. However, the efficacy of random forest and extreme gradient boosting improved when trained exclusively with machine learning-driven selected features, suggesting that the quality, rather than the quantity, of features is crucial for machine learning-model performance. This study offers insights into the application of emerging machine learning-techniques for the screening of living kidney donors.
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.