Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40161549›Full record

ArticleJAMIA open2025

Computer-assisted prescription of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents in patients undergoing maintenance hemodialysis: a randomized control trial for artificial intelligence model selection.

Lee-Moay Lim, Ming-Yen Lin, Chan Hsu, Chantung Ku, Yi-Pei Chen, Yihuang Kang, Yi-Wen Chiu

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMIA open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04185519 (A Model of Computer-assisted Prescription of Erythropoiesis-stimulating Agents), which is not on this map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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.

NCT04185519 nacompletednot on this map

A Model of Computer-assisted Prescription of Erythropoiesis-stimulating Agents (ESA) in Patients Under Hemodialysis

TypeinterventionalSponsorKaohsiung Medical University Chung-Ho Memorial HospitalRan2019 to 2020Enrolled126ConditionsEnd Stage Renal DiseaseArmsAI (model)
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
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

7 authors.

Lee-Moay LimDivision of Nephrology, Department of Internal Medicine, Kaohsiung Medical University Hospital, Kaohsiung Medical University, Kaohsiung 80708, Taiwan.
Ming-Yen LinDivision of Nephrology, Department of Internal Medicine, Kaohsiung Medical University Hospital, Kaohsiung Medical University, Kaohsiung 80708, Taiwan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8194-4833
Chan HsuDepartment of Information Management, National Sun Yat-sen University, Kaohsiung 80708, Taiwan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3974-1565
Chantung KuDepartment of Information Management, National Sun Yat-sen University, Kaohsiung 80708, Taiwan.
Yi-Pei ChenDivision of Nephrology, Department of Internal Medicine, Kaohsiung Medical University Hospital, Kaohsiung Medical University, Kaohsiung 80708, Taiwan.
Yihuang KangDepartment of Information Management, National Sun Yat-sen University, Kaohsiung 80708, Taiwan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4431-7977
Yi-Wen ChiuDivision of Nephrology, Department of Internal Medicine, Kaohsiung Medical University Hospital, Kaohsiung Medical University, Kaohsiung 80708, Taiwan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6840-5440

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: Machine learning (ML) algorithms are promising tools for managing anemia in hemodialysis (HD) patients. However, their efficacy in predicting erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) doses remains uncertain. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of a contemporary artificial intelligence (AI) model in prescribing ESA doses compared to physicians for HD patients. Materials and Methods: This double-blinded control trial randomized participants into traditional doctor (Dr) and AI groups. In the Dr group, doses of ESA were determined by following clinical guideline recommendations, while in the AI group, they were predicted by the developed models named Random effects (REEM) trees, Mixed-effect random forest (MERF), Long short-term memory (LSTM) networks-I, and LSTM-II. The primary outcome was the capability to maintain patients' hemoglobin (Hb) value near 11 g/dL with a margin of 0.25 g/dL after treating the suggested ESA, with the secondary outcome being Hb value between 10 and 12 g/dL. Results: A total of 124 participants were enrolled, with 104 completing the study. The mean Hb values were 10.8 and 10.9 g/dL in the AI and Dr groups, respectively, with 69.7% and 73.5% of participants in the respective groups maintaining Hb levels between 10 and 12 g/dL. Only the REEM trees model passed the non-inferiority test for the primary outcome with a margin of 0.25 g/dL and the secondary outcome with a margin of 15%. There was no difference in severe adverse events between the 2 groups. Conclusion: The REEM trees AI model demonstrated non-inferiority to physicians in prescribing ESA doses for HD patients, maintaining Hb levels within the therapeutic target. ClinicalTrialsgov Identifier: NCT04185519.

Indexed as

anemiaartificial intelligence (AI)ESA prescriptionhemodialysismodel selection

Identifiers

PMID40161549
PMCPMC11950923

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

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.