Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39545362›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2025

Machine learning-based prediction models in medical decision-making in kidney disease: patient, caregiver, and clinician perspectives on trust and appropriate use.

Jessica Sperling, Whitney Welsh, Erin Haseley, Stella Quenstedt, Perusi B Muhigaba, Adrian Brown, Patti Ephraim, Tariq Shafi, Michael Waitzkin, David Casarett and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Jessica SperlingSocial Science Research Institute, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-2443-3762
Whitney WelshSocial Science Research Institute, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708, United States.
Erin HaseleySocial Science Research Institute, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708, United States.
Stella QuenstedtClinical and Translational Science Institute, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC 27701, United States.
Perusi B MuhigabaClinical and Translational Science Institute, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC 27701, United States.
Adrian BrownSocial Science Research Institute, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708, United States.
Patti EphraimInstitute of Health System Science, Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research, Northwell Health, Manhasset, NY 11030, United States.
Tariq ShafiDepartment of Medicine, Houston Methodist, Houston, TX 77030, United States.
Michael WaitzkinScience & Society, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708, United States.
David CasarettDepartment of Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC 27708, United States.
Benjamin A GoldsteinDepartment of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC 27708, United States.

Funding

Science CoreP2CHD065563 · NICHD · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI Giovanna M Merli · 2015 to 2026
$5.7M
Predictive Analytics in Hemodialysis: Enabling Precision Care for Patient with ESKDR01DK123062 · NIDDK · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI GOLDSTEIN, BENJAMIN ALAN · 2020 to 2023
$2.6M
NICHD NIH HHS P2C HD065563NIDDK NIH HHS R01 DK123062NIH HHS 3R01DK123062
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThis study aims to improve the ethical use of machine learning (ML)-based clinical prediction models (CPMs) in shared decision-making for patients with kidney failure on dialysis. We explore factors that inform acceptability, interpretability, and implementation of ML-based CPMs among multiple constituent groups. MATERIALS AND

methodsWe collected and analyzed qualitative data from focus groups with varied end users, including: dialysis support providers (clinical providers and additional dialysis support providers such as dialysis clinic staff and social workers); patients; patients' caregivers (n = 52).

resultsParticipants were broadly accepting of ML-based CPMs, but with concerns on data sources, factors included in the model, and accuracy. Use was desired in conjunction with providers' views and explanations. Differences among respondent types were minimal overall but most prevalent in discussions of CPM presentation and model use. DISCUSSION AND

conclusionEvidence of acceptability of ML-based CPM usage provides support for ethical use, but numerous specific considerations in acceptability, model construction, and model use for shared clinical decision-making must be considered. There are specific steps that could be taken by data scientists and health systems to engender use that is accepted by end users and facilitates trust, but there are also ongoing barriers or challenges in addressing desires for use. This study contributes to emerging literature on interpretability, mechanisms for sharing complexities, including uncertainty regarding the model results, and implications for decision-making. It examines numerous stakeholder groups including providers, patients, and caregivers to provide specific considerations that can influence health system use and provide a basis for future research.

Indexed as

CaregiversFocus GroupsMachine LearningTrustAdultAttitude of Health PersonnelClinical Decision-MakingDecision Making, SharedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedRenal Dialysisdialysisfocus groupsmachine learningshared decision-makingtrust

Identifiers

PMID39545362
PMCPMC11648714

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.