Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41113995›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in artificial intelligence2025

Phase-specific kidney graft failure prediction with machine learning model.

Amankeldi A Salybekov, Markus Wolfien, Ainur Yerkos, Zholdas Buribayev, Sumi Hidaka, Shuzo Kobayashi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in artificial intelligence, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

6 authors.

Amankeldi A SalybekovKidney Disease and Transplant Center, Shonan Kamakura General Hospital, Kamakura, Japan.
Markus WolfienFaculty of Medicine Carl Gustav Carus, Institute for Medical Informatics and Biometry, TUD Dresden University of Technology, Dresden, Germany.
Ainur YerkosDepartment of Computer Science, Al-Farabi Kazakh National University, Almaty, Kazakhstan.
Zholdas BuribayevDepartment of Computer Science, Al-Farabi Kazakh National University, Almaty, Kazakhstan.
Sumi HidakaKidney Disease and Transplant Center, Shonan Kamakura General Hospital, Kamakura, Japan.
Shuzo KobayashiKidney Disease and Transplant Center, Shonan Kamakura General Hospital, Kamakura, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Accurate prediction of kidney graft failure at different phases post-transplantation is critical for timely intervention and long-term allograft preservation. Traditional survival models offer limited capacity for dynamic, time-specific risk estimation. Machine learning (ML) approaches, with their ability to model complex patterns, present a promising alternative. Methods: This study developed and dynamically evaluated phase-specific ML models to predict kidney graft failure across five post-transplant intervals: 0-3 months, 3-9 months, 9-15 months, 15-39 months, and 39-72 months. Clinically relevant retrospective data from deceased donor kidney transplant recipients were used for training and internal validation, with performance further confirmed on a blinded external validation cohort. Predictive performance was assessed using ROC AUC, F1 score, and G-mean. Results: The ML models demonstrated varying performance across time intervals. Short-term predictions in the 0-3 month and 3-9 month intervals yielded moderate accuracy (ROC AUC = 0.73 ± 0.07 and 0.72 ± 0.04, respectively). The highest predictive accuracy observed in mid-term or the 9-15-month window (ROC AUC = 0.92 ± 0.02; F1 score = 0.85 ± 0.03), followed by the 15-39-month period (ROC AUC = 0.84 ± 0.04; F1 score = 0.76 ± 0.04). Long-term prediction from 39 to 72 months was more challenging (ROC AUC = 0.70 ± 0.07; F1 score = 0.65 ± 0.06). Conclusion: Phase-specific ML models offer robust predictive performance for kidney graft failure, particularly in mid-term periods, supporting their integration into dynamic post-transplant surveillance strategies. These models can aid clinicians in identifying high-risk patients and tailoring follow-up protocols to optimize long-term transplant outcomes.

Indexed as

deceased donorgraft failurekidney transplantationmachine learningsurvival prediction

Identifiers

PMID41113995
PMCPMC12528114

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.