Observational studyBMC nephrology2025
Enhancing individual glomerular filtration rate assessment: can we trust the equation? Development and validation of machine learning models to assess the trustworthiness of estimated GFR compared to measured GFR.
Observational study in BMC nephrology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Applications of Machine Learning for Early Diagnosis and Prognosis of Chronic Kidney Disease: Current Evidence.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Keller/eGFR ratio as a simple and useful tool to make a first differentiation between renal aging and chronic nephropathy in large populations.International urology and nephrology · 2026Review
- Calibration and prediction of results after failed injection in SPECT renal dynamic imaging.American journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
31 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCreatinine-based estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) equations are widely used in clinical practice but exhibit inherent limitations. On the other side, measuring GFR is time consuming and not available in routine clinical practice. We developed and validated machine learning models to assess the trustworthiness (i.e. the ability of equations to estimate measured GFR (mGFR) within 10%, 20% or 30%) of the European Kidney Function Consortium (EKFC) equation at the individual level.
methodsThis observational study used data from European and US cohorts, comprising 22,343 participants of all ages with available mGFR results. Four machine learning and two traditional logistic regression models were trained on a cohort of 9,202 participants to predict the likelihood of the EKFC creatinine-derived eGFR falling within 30% (p30), 20% (p20) or 10% (p10) of the mGFR value. The algorithms were internally and then externally validated on cohorts of respectively 3,034 and 10,107 participants. The predictors included in the models were creatinine, age, sex, height, weight, and EKFC.
resultsThe random forest model was the most robust model. In the external validation cohort, the model achieved an area under the curve of 0.675 (95%CI 0.660;0.690) and an accuracy of 0.716 (95%CI 0.707;0.725) for the P30 criterion. Sensitivity was 0.756 (95%CI 0.747;0.765) and specificity was 0.485 (95%CI 0.460; 0.511) at the 80% probability level that EKFC falls within 30% of mGFR. At the population level, the PPV of this machine learning model was 89.5%, higher than the EKFC P30 of 85.2%. A free web-application was developed to allow the physician to assess the trustworthiness of EKFC at the individual level.
conclusionsA strategy using machine learning model marginally improves the trustworthiness of GFR estimation at the population level. An additional value of this approach lies in its ability to provide assessments at the individual level.
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.