ReviewKidney medicine2026
Unboxing iBox: A Critical Appraisal of Its Measurement Properties for Predicting Kidney Allograft Failure.
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.
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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.