ArticleFrontiers in artificial intelligence2025
Phase-specific kidney graft failure prediction with machine learning model.
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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Predicting delayed graft function after kidney transplant: Do complex models help compared to standard statistics?World journal of nephrology · 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
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
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.