ArticlePloS one2025
Construction and application of machine learning models for predicting intradialytic hypotension.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- A machine learning-based framework for predicting hypertension using serum hematological factors.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Transforming nephrology through artificial intelligence: a state-of-the-art roadmap for clinical integration.Clinical kidney journal · 2026Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionIntradialytic hypotension (IDH) remains a prevalent complication of hemodialysis, which is associated with adverse outcomes for patients. This study seeks to harness machine learning to construct predictive models for IDH based on multiple definitions.
methodsIn this study, a comprehensive approach was employed, leveraging a dataset comprising 26,690 hemodialysis (HD) sessions for training and testing cohort, with an additional 12,293 HD sessions serving as a temporal validation cohort. Five definitions of IDH were employed, and models for each IDH definition were constructed using ten machine learning algorithms. Subsequently, model interpretation was facilitated. Feature simplification ensued, leading to the creation and evaluation of a streamlined machine learning model. Both the most effective machine learning model and its simplified counterpart underwent temporal validation.
resultsAcross the five distinct definitions of IDH, the CatBoost model demonstrated superior predictive prowess, generally yielding the highest receiver operating characteristic - area under the curve (ROC-AUC) (Definition 1-5: 0.859, 0.864, 0.880, 0.848, 0.845). Noteworthy is the persistent inclusion of certain features within the top 20 across all definitions, including left ventricular mass index (LVMI), etc. Leveraging these features, we developed robust machine learning models that exhibited good performance (ROC-AUC for Definition 1-5: 0.866, 0.858, 0.874, 0.843, 0.838). Both the leading original machine learning model and the refined simplified machine learning model demonstrated robust performance on a temporal validation set.
conclusionMachine learning emerged as a reliable tool for predicting IDH in HD patients. Notably, LVMI emerged as a crucial feature for effectively predicting IDH. The simplified models are accessible on the provided website.
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.