Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40620479›Full record

ReviewJAMIA open2025

Artificial intelligence models for predicting acute kidney injury in the intensive care unit: a systematic review of modeling methods, data utilization, and clinical applicability.

Tongyue Shi, Yu Lin, Huiying Zhao, Guilan Kong

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in JAMIA open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
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

4 authors.

Tongyue ShiNational Institute of Health Data Science, Peking University, Beijing 100191, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0005-6335-2702
Yu LinDepartment of Twin Research and Genetic Epidemiology, King's College London, London SE1 7EH, United Kingdom.
Huiying ZhaoDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Peking University People's Hospital, Beijing 100044, China.
Guilan KongNational Institute of Health Data Science, Peking University, Beijing 100191, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0851-1644

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives: Acute kidney injury (AKI) is common in intensive care unit (ICU) patients and is associated with high mortality, prolonged ICU stays, and increased costs. Early prediction is crucial for timely intervention and improved outcomes. Various prediction models, including machine learning, deep learning, and dynamic prediction frameworks, have been developed, but their modeling approaches, data utilization, and clinical applicability require further investigation. This review comprehensively assesses the modeling methods, data utilization strategies, and clinical applicability of AKI prediction models in the ICU, identifies current challenges, and proposes future research directions. Materials and Methods: A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, IEEE Xplore, and ACM Digital Library up to December 12, 2024. Studies were included if they reported AKI prediction models using ICU-specific data, included at least 2 predictors, and evaluated model performance. Extracted data included study characteristics, model details, data sources, performance metrics, and validation methods. The risk of bias was assessed using PROBAST (Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool), and the reporting quality was evaluated using the TRIPOD (Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis) guideline. Results: From 1305 screened studies, 47 met the inclusion criteria. Models ranged from machine learning to advanced deep learning techniques. Only 14 studies conducted external validation. Most studies ( Discussion: Although AI models have shown promise in predicting AKI in ICU settings, key challenges remain. These include limited external validation, lack of dynamic modeling, insufficient interpretability, and poor consideration of clinical integration. Different study designs, prediction windows, and data sources also hinder model comparability. Conclusions: Future research should prioritize dynamic, interpretable, and externally validated models. These efforts are critical to bridge the gap between model development and clinical implementation and to enhance the real-world applicability of AI in AKI prediction.

Indexed as

acute kidney injuryartificial intelligenceintensive care unitmachine learningprediction modelingsystematic review

Identifiers

PMID40620479
PMCPMC12225755

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.