ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2025
Developing clinical prognostic models to predict graft survival after renal transplantation: comparison of statistical and machine learning models.
Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Predicting kidney graft survival with a machine learning model based on for-cause biopsy transcriptomics.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Smart transplants: emerging role of nanotechnology and big data in kidney and islet transplantation, a frontier in precision medicine.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Review
- Phase-specific kidney graft failure prediction with machine learning model.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 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
introductionRenal transplantation is a critical treatment for end-stage renal disease, but graft failure remains a significant concern. Accurate prediction of graft survival is crucial to identify high-risk patients. This study aimed to develop prognostic models for predicting renal graft survival and compare the performance of statistical and machine learning models. METHODOLOGY: The study utilized data from 278 renal transplant recipients at the Ethiopian National Kidney Transplantation Center between September 2015 and February 2022. To address the class imbalance of the data, SMOTE resampling was applied. Various models were evaluated, including Standard and penalized Cox models, Random Survival Forest, and Stochastic Gradient Boosting. Prognostic predictors were selected based on statistical significance and variable importance.
resultsThe median graft survival time was 33 months, and the mean hazard of graft failure was 0.0755. The 3-month, 1-year, and 3-year graft survival rates were found to be 0.979, 0.953, and 0.911, respectively. The Stochastic Gradient Boosting (SGB) model demonstrated the best discrimination and calibration performance, with a C-index of 0.943 and a Brier score of 0.000351. The Ridge-based Cox model closely followed the SGB model's prediction performance with better interpretability. The key prognostic predictors of graft survival included an episode of acute and chronic rejections, post-transplant urological complications, post-transplant nonadherence, blood urea nitrogen level, post-transplant regular exercise, and marital status.
conclusionsThe Stochastic Gradient Boosting model demonstrated the highest predictive performance, while the Ridge-Cox model offered better interpretability with a comparable performance. Clinicians should consider the trade-off between prediction accuracy and interpretability when selecting a model. Incorporating these findings into the clinical practice can improve risk stratification and personalized management strategies for kidney transplant recipients.
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.