Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41509999›Full record

ReviewKidney medicine2026

Unboxing iBox: A Critical Appraisal of Its Measurement Properties for Predicting Kidney Allograft Failure.

Christie Rampersad

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Kidney medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Christie RampersadAjmera Transplant Centre, Toronto General Hospital, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Accurate prediction of kidney allograft failure is key to guiding posttransplant care and stratifying trial participants. The iBox model estimates death-censored graft failure risk at 3, 5, and 7 years posttransplant using demographic, functional, immunologic, and histologic variables. It has been externally validated and to our knowledge, is the first transplant risk score to receive regulatory qualification as a surrogate trial endpoint. This narrative review critically appraises iBox using the Kirschner and Guyatt framework for clinical indices and Steyerberg's framework for predictive models. iBox demonstrates strong sensibility, excellent discrimination (C-index ∼0.81), good calibration, and robust performance across known subgroups. Criterion and construct validity are strong, although several aspects warrant further exploration to support broader implementation. Item reduction and model selection methods were not fully detailed, and key inputs such as biopsy findings and donor-specific antibody levels may vary in availability or be subject to measurement challenges. Some predictors reflect late-stage pathology, which may limit opportunities for early intervention. Formal evaluation of reliability, responsiveness, and interpretability-particularly for longitudinal score changes-remains an important area for future research. By systematically assessing iBox's measurement properties, this review supported its thoughtful implementation and highlighted future research priorities as iBox is integrated into posttransplant care and trial design.

Indexed as

graft failureKidney transplantmeasurementprediction model

Identifiers

PMID41509999
PMCPMC12774767

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.