ArticleRenal failure2024
Establishing a differential diagnosis model between primary membranous nephropathy and non-primary membranous nephropathy by machine learning algorithms.
Article in Renal failure, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
contextFour algorithms with relatively balanced complexity and accuracy in deep learning classification algorithm were selected for differential diagnosis of primary membranous nephropathy (PMN).
objectiveThis study explored the most suitable classification algorithm for PMN identification, and to provide data reference for PMN diagnosis research.
methodsA total of 500 patients were referred to Luo-he Central Hospital from 2019 to 2021. All patients were diagnosed with primary glomerular disease confirmed by renal biopsy, contained 322 cases of PMN, the 178 cases of non-PMN. Using the decision tree, random forest, support vector machine, and extreme gradient boosting (Xgboost) to establish a differential diagnosis model for PMN and non-PMN. Based on the true positive rate, true negative rate, false-positive rate, false-negative rate, accuracy, feature work area under the curve (AUC) of subjects, the best performance of the model was chosen.
resultsThe efficiency of the Xgboost model based on the above evaluation indicators was the highest, which the diagnosis of PMN of the sensitivity and specificity, respectively 92% and 96%.
conclusionsThe differential diagnosis model for PMN was established successfully and the efficiency performance of the Xgboost model was the best. It could be used for the clinical diagnosis of PMN.
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.