ArticleAmerican journal of nephrology2025
Building and Prospectively Evaluating a Prediction Model to Forecast Urgent Dialysis Needs across Four Tertiary Hospitals.
Article in American journal of nephrology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionUrgent dialysis is labor-intensive and expensive because it requires specialized nursing staff. Most hospitals schedule a fixed number of nurses daily for urgent dialysis needs, but daily dialysis demand fluctuates, leading to inefficiencies.
methodsWe developed statistical, machine learning, and deep learning models to predict the next 7 days' dialysis needs. Our study included a retrospective (April 1, 2018, to March 31, 2023) and prospective component (November 1 to 30, 2023, and May 31 to June 27, 2024) across four hospitals (hospital A for one hospital and hospital B for three hospitals combined). To avoid model over-fitting, we divided our data into three sets: training, testing, and validation. The latter was performed prospectively during two silent deployment periods. The primary outcome measure was the mean absolute error (MAE).
resultsThe mean daily dialysis volume in the retrospective data was 16.0 (standard deviation [SD], 5.7) for hospital A and 4.5 (SD, 2.3) for hospital B. The best performing models were autoregressive integrated moving average (ARIMA) and temporal convolutional network; both resulted in an MAE of 3.0 procedures for hospital A and 1.5 procedures for hospital B, compared to 4.4 and 1.9, respectively, for the benchmark. During our two prospective evaluations, the mean daily dialysis volume was 16.8 (SD, 4.5) for hospital A and 4.2 (SD, 2.5) for hospital B. The ARIMA model resulted in the lowest MAE at 2.2 and 1.5 procedures, respectively.
conclusionsOur multicenter, 6-year study demonstrated that urgent in-hospital dialysis needs can be accurately forecasted.
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.