ArticleBioinformatics (Oxford, England)2024
An empirical study on KDIGO-defined acute kidney injury prediction in the intensive care unit.
Article in Bioinformatics (Oxford, England), 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.
- STDP-inspired temporal transition modeling for adaptive clinical risk prediction from electronic health records.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
- Evaluating deep learning sepsis prediction models in ICUs under distribution shift: a multi-centre retrospective cohort study.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Novel graph-based centralized and decentralized approaches for early AKI prediction.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Construction of the prediction model and analysis of key winning factors in world women's volleyball using gradient boosting decision tree.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Enhancing post-kidney transplant prognostication: an interpretable machine learning approach for longitudinal outcome prediction.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
motivationAcute kidney injury (AKI) is a syndrome that affects a large fraction of all critically ill patients, and early diagnosis to receive adequate treatment is as imperative as it is challenging to make early. Consequently, machine learning approaches have been developed to predict AKI ahead of time. However, the prevalence of AKI is often underestimated in state-of-the-art approaches, as they rely on an AKI event annotation solely based on creatinine, ignoring urine output. We construct and evaluate early warning systems for AKI in a multi-disciplinary ICU setting, using the complete KDIGO definition of AKI. We propose several variants of gradient-boosted decision tree (GBDT)-based models, including a novel time-stacking based approach. A state-of-the-art LSTM-based model previously proposed for AKI prediction is used as a comparison, which was not specifically evaluated in ICU settings yet.
resultsWe find that optimal performance is achieved by using GBDT with the time-based stacking technique (AUPRC = 65.7%, compared with the LSTM-based model's AUPRC = 62.6%), which is motivated by the high relevance of time since ICU admission for this task. Both models show mildly reduced performance in the limited training data setting, perform fairly across different subcohorts, and exhibit no issues in gender transfer. Following the official KDIGO definition substantially increases the number of annotated AKI events. In our study GBDTs outperform LSTM models for AKI prediction. Generally, we find that both model types are robust in a variety of challenging settings arising for ICU data. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: The code to reproduce the findings of our manuscript can be found at: https://github.com/ratschlab/AKI-EWS.
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.