ArticleScientific reports2025
Improved CKD classification based on explainable artificial intelligence with extra trees and BBFS.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development and external validation of an explainable machine learning model for predicting chronic kidney disease progression in the Korean population.Kidney research and clinical practice · 2026Article
- Early prediction of severe Omicron pneumonia using a multimodal a.i. model integrating delta CT radiomics and laboratory indicators.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- DentoMorph-LDMs: diffusion models based on novel adaptive 8-connected gum tissue and deciduous teeth loss for dental image augmentation.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Machine learning models integrating intracranial artery calcification to predict outcomes of mechanical thrombectomy.Frontiers in neurology · 2025Article
- Deep learning in renal ultrasound: applications, challenges, and future outlook.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Chronic kidney disease is a persistent ailment marked by the gradual decline of kidney function. Its classification primarily relies on the estimated glomerular filtration rate and the existence of kidney damage. The kidney disease improving global outcomes organization has established a widely accepted system for categorizing chronic kidney disease. explainable artificial intelligence for classification involves creating machine learning models that not only accurately predict outcomes but also offer clear and interpretable explanations for their decisions. Traditional machine learning models often pose difficulties in comprehending the intricate processes behind specific classification choices due to their intricate and obscure nature. In this study, an explainable artificial intelligence-chronic kidney disease model is introduced for the process of classification. The model applies explainable artificial intelligence by utilizing extra trees and shapley additive explanations values. Also, binary breadth-first search algorithm is used to select the most important features for the proposed explainable artificial intelligence-chronic kidney disease model. This methodology is designed to derive valuable insights for enhancing decision-making strategies within the field of classifying chronic kidney diseases. The performance of the proposed model is compared with another machine learning models, namely, random forest, decision tree, bagging classifier, adaptive boosting, and k-nearest neighbor, and the performance of the models is evaluated using accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, F-score, and area under the ROC curve. The experimental results demonstrated that the proposed model achieved the best results with accuracy equals 99.9%.
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.