ArticleFrontiers in immunology2024
Machine learning models predicts risk of proliferative lupus nephritis.
Article in Frontiers in immunology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development of a LASSO-based machine learning model for relapse prediction in lupus nephritis.Lupus science & medicine · 2026Article
- Serum uric acid in systemic lupus erythematosus with preserved renal function: a cross-sectional and longitudinal analysis.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Article
- Review
- Radiomics models with baseline MRI and clinical data to predict target therapy response and high-risk mortality in metastatic GIST.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Machine learning in lupus nephritis: bridging prediction models and clinical decision-making towards personalized nephrology.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Review
- Artificial Intelligence Models in Diagnosis and Treatment of Kidney Diseases: Current Status and Prospects.Kidney diseases (Basel, Switzerland)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study aims to develop and validate machine learning models to predict proliferative lupus nephritis (PLN) occurrence, offering a reliable diagnostic alternative when renal biopsy is not feasible or safe. Methods: This study retrospectively analyzed clinical and laboratory data from patients diagnosed with SLE and renal involvement who underwent renal biopsy at West China Hospital of Sichuan University between 2011 and 2021. We randomly assigned 70% of the patients to a training cohort and the remaining 30% to a test cohort. Various machine learning models were constructed on the training cohort, including generalized linear models (e.g., logistic regression, least absolute shrinkage and selection operator, ridge regression, and elastic net), support vector machines (linear and radial basis kernel functions), and decision tree models (e.g., classical decision tree, conditional inference tree, and random forest). Diagnostic performance was evaluated using ROC curves, calibration curves, and DCA for both cohorts. Furthermore, different machine learning models were compared to identify key and shared features, aiming to screen for potential PLN diagnostic markers. Results: Involving 1312 LN patients, with 780 PLN/NPLN cases analyzed. They were randomly divided into a training group (547 cases) and a testing group (233 cases). we developed nine machine learning models in the training group. Seven models demonstrated excellent discriminatory abilities in the testing cohort, random forest model showed the highest discriminatory ability (AUC: 0.880, 95% confidence interval(CI): 0.835-0.926). Logistic regression had the best calibration, while random forest exhibited the greatest clinical net benefit. By comparing features across various models, we confirmed the efficacy of traditional indicators like anti-dsDNA antibodies, complement levels, serum creatinine, and urinary red and white blood cells in predicting and distinguishing PLN. Additionally, we uncovered the potential value of previously controversial or underutilized indicators such as serum chloride, neutrophil percentage, serum cystatin C, hematocrit, urinary pH, blood routine red blood cells, and immunoglobulin M in predicting PLN. Conclusion: This study provides a comprehensive perspective on incorporating a broader range of biomarkers for diagnosing and predicting PLN. Additionally, it offers an ideal non-invasive diagnostic tool for SLE patients unable to undergo renal biopsy.
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.