ArticleClinical kidney journal2025
Predicting blood pressure variability in hemodialysis using an explainable boosting machine model.
Article in Clinical kidney 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Intradialytic hypotension and hypertension significantly increase cardiovascular risk in hemodialysis patients, highlighting the need for effective monitoring systems. By predicting systolic blood pressure (SBP) values, monitoring capabilities can be improved beyond traditional event classification. Despite this potential advantage, current predictive models report a consistent error range (11-13 mmHg) and operate as black boxes. This study aims to develop a transparent SBP prediction model and evaluate its generalizability. Methods: This retrospective study analyzed data from 524 patients across metropolitan and suburban hospital branches (2016-19), collecting hemodialysis parameters, vital signs and predialytic measurements. The Explainable Boosting Machine (EBM) was used as the primary model to predict SBP changes. Cross-branch validation was implemented to evaluate model generalizability and perform feature selection. The EBM model was then compared with five other common machine learning methods. Results: EBM with 16 dynamic features achieved competitive performance compared with other machine learning methods (mean absolute error: 10.57-11.33 mmHg, Pearson's r: 0.80-0.83) in cross-validation between branches. A waterfall plot visualized the model's additive scoring process, showing how each feature quantitatively contributes to the final SBP prediction. Error analysis of the models revealed strong positive correlations (Pearson's r: 0.81-0.87) between patients' blood pressure variability and prediction errors. Conclusions: The EBM models demonstrated excellent cross-branch generalizability while providing feature-level transparency that reflects clinical understanding of dialysis physiology, unlike black-box models that require additional post-hoc explanation methods such as SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP). These findings provide a foundation for developing patient-specific solutions for individuals with highly variable blood pressure patterns.
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.