ArticleThe journal of vascular access2026
From algorithms to action: Risk stratification for arteriovenous fistula failure in hemodialysis.
Article in The journal of vascular access, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundArteriovenous fistula (AVF) is the preferred vascular access for hemodialysis, yet primary failure and early dysfunction remain common, thereby prolonging catheter dependence and increasing costs. Traditional prediction models show limited discrimination, and few studies have combined machine-learning (ML) methods with formal assessment of clinical utility. This study aimed to identify predictors of AVF failure and compare ML models with logistic regression in a Turkish hemodialysis cohort, and to derive a clinical risk score.
methodsIn this retrospective study, 385 adults with native AVFs (171 failures, 214 patent) operated between January 2018 and November 2024 were analyzed. Demographic, clinical, and laboratory variables were extracted from electronic records. Standard logistic regression (GLM), penalized logistic regression (LASSO), Random Forest, and XGBoost models were fitted and evaluated using 10-fold cross-validation and an independent test set (75%/25% split). LASSO coefficients were translated into a hand-calculable clinical risk score.
resultsPatients with AVF failure were older and had lower BMI, albumin, and creatinine than those with patent accesses. In multivariable logistic regression, higher urea and lower BMI and albumin independently predicted failure. On the test set, AUCs were 0.731 (GLM), 0.876 (LASSO), 0.918 (Random Forest), and 0.884 (XGBoost). Cross-validated mean AUCs ranged from 0.906 (GLM) to 0.950 (XGBoost), with Brier scores 0.079-0.116 and generally good calibration. A 30% risk threshold suggested a clinically reasonable balance between sensitivity and specificity, and decision-curve analysis showed net benefit for all ML models versus treat-all/none. The clinical risk score stratified patients into low (⩽3 points), intermediate (4-7), and high (⩾8) risk.
conclusionML models, particularly ensemble methods, showed improved discrimination compared with standard logistic regression for predicting AVF failure and supported a simple, clinically usable risk score for stratified surveillance.
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.