ArticleInternational journal of general medicine2025
Prediction of Acute Kidney Injury for Critically Ill Cardiogenic Shock Patients with Machine Learning Algorithms.
Article in International journal of general medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Impact of stress hyperglycemia ratio on acute kidney injury and mortality in patients with cardiogenic shock: a retrospective analysis.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The aim of this study was to use five machine learning approaches and logistic regression to design and validate the acute kidney injury (AKI) prediction model for critically ill individuals with cardiogenic shock (CS). Methods: All patients who diagnosed with CS from the MIMIC-IV database, the eICU database, and Zhongnan hospital of Wuhan university were included in this study. Clinical information, including demographics, comorbidities, vital signs, critical illness scores and laboratory tests was retrospectively collected. Five machine learning algorithms (LightGBM, decision tree, XGBoost, random forest, and ensemble model) and one conventional logistic regression were applied for the prediction of AKI in critically ill individuals with CS. ROC curves were generated via python software to assess the overall performance of machine learning algorithms and the SHAP analysis was adopted to reveal the impact of prediction for each feature. Results: The ensemble model exhibited the best predictive ability (AUC:0.91, 95% CI, 0.88-0.94), followed by random forest (AUC:0.90, 95% CI, 0.86-0.94) and XGBoost (AUC:0.89, 95% CI, 0.84-0.92). While the logistic regression model obtained the worst predictive performance (AUC:0.62, 95% CI, 0.56-0.68). When validated the prediction models with eICU database, the ensemble model exhibited the best predictive ability (AUC:0.92, 95% CI, 0.89-0.96), while the logistic model obtained the worst predictive performance (AUC:0.61, 95% CI, 0.56-0.67). Finally, we verified the prediction models using the data from our hospital and ensemble model still exhibited the best predictive ability (AUC:0.74, 95% CI, 0.62-0.86), while the decision tree model obtained the worst predictive performance (AUC:0.52, 95% CI 0.35-0.70). Conclusion: Machine learning algorithms could be utilized for the AKI prediction among critically ill CS patients, and exhibit superior predictive performance compared to the conventional logistic regression analysis.
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.