ArticleClinical kidney journal2024
Using artificial intelligence to predict mortality in AKI patients: a systematic review/meta-analysis.
Article in Clinical kidney journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- AI Models for Predicting Acute Kidney Injury (AKI) and Post-AKI Mortality: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Pooled it
- Artificial intelligence for predicting paediatric acute kidney injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Clinical kidney journal · 2026Article
- Neonatal Kidney Function, Injury and Drug Dosing: A Contemporary Review.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Artificial intelligence and pediatric acute kidney injury: a mini-review and white paper.Frontiers in nephrology · 2025Review
- Editorial: Novel diagnostic and prognostic methods in acute kidney injury among patients in intensive care unit.Frontiers in nephrology · 2025Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Nephrology: Pioneering Precision with Multimodal Intelligence.Indian journal of nephrologyReview
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Acute kidney injury (AKI) is associated with increased morbidity/mortality. With artificial intelligence (AI), more dynamic models for mortality prediction in AKI patients have been developed using machine learning (ML) algorithms. The performance of various ML models was reviewed in terms of their ability to predict in-hospital mortality for AKI patients. Methods: A literature search was conducted through PubMed, Embase and Web of Science databases. Included studies contained variables regarding the efficacy of the AI model [the AUC, accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value and positive predictive value]. Only original studies that consisted of cross-sectional studies, prospective and retrospective studies were included, while reviews and self-reported outcomes were excluded. There was no restriction on time and geographic location. Results: Eight studies with 37 032 AKI patients were included, with a mean age of 65.3 years. The in-hospital mortality was 18.0% in the derivation and 15.8% in the validation cohorts. The pooled [95% confidence interval (CI)] AUC was observed to be highest for the broad learning system (BLS) model [0.852 (0.820-0.883)] and elastic net final (ENF) model [0.852 (0.813-0.891)], and lowest for proposed clinical model (PCM) [0.765 (0.716-0.814)]. The pooled (95% CI) AUC of BLS and ENF did not differ significantly from other models except PCM [Delong's test Conclusion: Our results show that BLS and ENF models are equally effective as other ML models in predicting in-hospital mortality, with variability across all models. Additional studies are needed.
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.