ArticleScientific reports2024
Comparison between the EKFC-equation and machine learning models to predict Glomerular Filtration Rate.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Machine Learning to Assist in Managing Acute Kidney Injury in General Wards: Multicenter Retrospective Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
37 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In clinical practice, the glomerular filtration rate (GFR), a measurement of kidney functioning, is normally calculated using equations, such as the European Kidney Function Consortium (EKFC) equation. Despite being the most general equation, EKFC, just like previously proposed approaches, can still struggle to achieve satisfactory performance, limiting its clinical applicability. As a possible solution, recently machine learning (ML) has been investigated to improve GFR prediction, nonetheless the literature still lacks a general and multi-center study. Using a dataset with 19,629 patients from 13 cohorts, we investigate if ML can improve GFR prediction in comparison to EKFC. More specifically, we compare diverse ML methods, which were allowed to use age, sex, serum creatinine, cystatin C, height, weight and BMI as features, in internal and external cohorts against EKFC. The results show that the most performing ML method, random forest (RF), and EKFC are very competitive where RF and EKFC achieved respectively P10 and P30 values of 0.45 (95% CI 0.44;0.46) and 0.89 (95% CI 0.88;0.90), whereas EKFC yielded 0.44 (95% CI 0.43; 0.44) and 0.89 (95% CI 0.88; 0.90), considering the entire cohort. Small differences were, however, observed in patients younger than 12 years where RF slightly outperformed EKFC.
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.