ArticleScientific reports2025
GenAI exceeds clinical experts in predicting acute kidney injury following paediatric cardiopulmonary bypass.
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 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Machine learning models for predicting postoperative acute kidney injury in pediatric cardiac surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Artificial intelligence in congenital heart surgery: a scoping review and primer for surgeons.Translational pediatrics · 2026Review
- Large Language Models Using Clinical Text in Pediatrics: A Scoping Review.JAMA network open · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The emergence of large language models (LLMs) opens new horizons to leverage, often unused, information in clinical text. Our study aims to capitalise on this new potential. Specifically, we examine the utility of text embeddings generated by LLMs in predicting postoperative acute kidney injury (AKI) in paediatric cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) patients using electronic health record (EHR) text, and propose methods for explaining their output. AKI could be a serious complication in paediatric CPB and its accurate prediction can significantly improve patient outcomes by enabling timely interventions. We evaluate various text embedding algorithms such as Doc2Vec, top-performing sentence transformers on Hugging Face, and commercial LLMs from Google and OpenAI. We benchmark the cross-validated performance of these 'AI models' against a 'baseline model' as well as an established clinically-defined 'expert model'. The baseline model includes structured features, i.e., patient gender, age, height, body mass index and length of operation. The majority of AI models surpass, not only the baseline model, but also the expert model. An ensemble of AI and clinical-expert models improves discriminative performance by 23% compared to the baseline model. Consistency of patient clusters formed from AI-generated embeddings with clinical-expert clusters-measured via the adjusted rand index and adjusted mutual information metrics-illustrates the medical validity of LLM embeddings. We create a reverse mapping from the numeric embedding space to the natural-language domain via the embedding-based clusters, generating medical labels for the clusters in the process. We also use text-generating LLMs to summarise the differences between AI and expert clusters. Such 'explainability' outputs can increase medical practitioners' trust in the AI applications, and help generate new hypotheses, e.g., by studying the association of cluster memberships and outcomes of interest.
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.