SynthesisBMC medical informatics and decision making2026
Machine learning for the prediction of acute kidney injury post cardiac surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Machine learning-based prediction of postoperative continuous renal replacement therapy initiation after open thoracoabdominal aortic repair.BMC nephrology · 2026Article
- Interpretable machine learning to predict postoperative adverse outcomes in cardiac surgery.BMC anesthesiology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesCardiac surgery associated acute kidney injury can lead to increased morbidity, mortality, and hospitalization. The available risk assessment tools have limited predictive ability. Machine learning has been increasingly utilized to predict acute kidney injury in cardiac surgery patients in recent times due to its ability to handle complex clinical data. However, its predictive value remains uncertain. This study evaluates the predictive performance of machine learning models for acute kidney injury post-cardiac surgery.
methodsA systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted by searching Web of Science, PubMed, Science Direct, Google Scholar, Scopus, and Cochrane Library up to 31st December 2025. PRISMA guidelines were followed. Included studies were assessed for machine learning model performance and acute kidney injury predictors, with effect measures including area under the receiver operator characteristic curve (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity. Pooled estimates were calculated using a random-effects model with 95% confidence intervals. Risk of bias was assessed using PROBAST. The meta-analysis in our study was performed using R version 4.5.0.
resultsThe systematic search yielded 45 studies that met our inclusion criteria, encompassing 13 distinct model types, which include 81 models for training and 162 for validation. The overall pooled AUC was 0.83 (95% CI: 0.79–0.85) in the training and 0.76 (95% CI: 0.75–0.78) in the validation cohorts. Pooled sensitivity and specificity in the training dataset were 0.75 (95% CI: 0.71–0.79) and 0.81 (95% CI: 0.72–0.87), respectively. In the validation dataset, pooled sensitivity was 0.61 (95% CI: 0.53–0.69), while specificity was 0.82 (95% CI: 0.77–0.86). Analysis showed an overall 44.4% high risk of bias, particularly due to the analysis domain of PROBAST.
conclusionThis study suggests that machine learning based models could potentially serve as a viable framework for predicting the risk of post-cardiac surgery AKI, however, highlighting the need for model optimization and validation in a diverse population before clinical implementation.
trial registrationThe study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42024576556).
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.