ArticleBMC nephrology2025
CKD-M2 study: 2-year mortality prediction tool for advanced kidney disease.
Article in BMC 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA few models have been developed in recent years to predict all-cause mortality in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). However, many have been developed using inappropriate methods and have not been externally validated. This study aims to improve our previously validated tool for predicting 2-year all-cause mortality in stage 4-5 CKD patients by enlarging the training dataset, thereby enhancing its robustness, which is further supported by a second external validation.
methodThe Bayesian network-based 2-year all-cause mortality prediction tool was trained on a comprehensive national dataset, which was further enriched by incorporating data from a previous external validation. Internal performance was assessed using 10-fold cross-validation, while external validity was confirmed through a second validation on the CERRENE cohort. The discriminatory ability of the prediction tool was evaluated both internally and externally using accuracy, c-statistic, sensitivity, and specificity. The calibration of the external validation was visualized with a calibration curve.
resultsThe prediction tool was developed using a training dataset of 1,061 patients (median age 72.3 years; 2-year mortality rate 21.2%) and externally validated using data from 409 patients (median age 77.5 years; 2-year mortality rate 17.6%) with CKD stage 4 or 5. The tool demonstrated satisfactory performance in both internal and external validation (accuracy: 77.2% and 77.8%; AUC-ROC: 0.76 and 0.74; sensitivity: 47.1% and 54.2%; specificity: 85.3% and 82.3%, respectively). The calibration curve demonstrated acceptable agreement between predicted and observed outcomes, and Brier score = 0.132.
conclusionThe updated prediction tool demonstrated satisfactory performance in both internal and external validation processes. Before it can be used in clinical practice, it must undergo national and international external validations, which are currently in progress.
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.