ArticleComputational and structural biotechnology journal2025
Design and validation of an automated healthcare-integrated biobanking algorithm for identification of advanced chronic kidney disease.
Article in Computational and structural biotechnology journal, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Healthcare-integrated biobanking (HIB) describes the collection of surplus samples from clinical routine and requires tailored algorithms for identification of adequate samples. However, identifying patients with specific conditions like chronic kidney disease (CKD) from heterogeneous real-world data remains challenging. This study develops and validates two HIB-specific algorithms for automated CKD identification based on electronic health records (EHR), enabling targeted sample collection and retrospective cohort assembly. Two logistic regression-based CKD algorithms were developed in an existing training cohort (n = 785) with high prevalence of CKD (48 %): the admissionHIB algorithm (based on laboratory values at admission) and the historyHIB algorithm (including additional previous hospital stays). The validation was carried out on patients of Jena University Hospital who gave informed consent to the Broad Consent of the Medical Informatics Initiative (MII) and were admitted between 01/2018 and 04/2020. The validation cohort was divided into a gold-standard cohort (n = 162) defined by manual chart review and a larger silver-standard cohort (n = 1075) generated using a validated algorithm from prior studies. The admissionHIB and historyHIB algorithms achieved F1-scores of 86 % and 91 %, respectively, in the training cohort. The validation cohort had a lower prevalence of CKD (approximately 12 %). Several automated review algorithms were evaluated in the gold-standard cohort, with the best-performing model (93 % recall, precision, and F1-score; 97 % accuracy) selected to generate the silver-standard cohort. Both HIB algorithms yielded F1-scores of 80 % (admissionHIB) and 78 % (historyHIB) in the gold-standard cohort, and 83 % and 80 %, respectively, in the silver-standard cohort. These findings demonstrate good performance of HIB-specific CKD algorithms across heterogeneous patient populations, establishing a reproducible framework combining real-world EHR data, patient consent infrastructure, and silver-standard validation.
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.