ArticlePeerJ2026
Development and validation of early-stage and progression prediction models for chronic kidney disease: a retrospective study.
Article in PeerJ, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Chronic kidney disease (CKD) poses a significant public health burden. This study aimed to evaluate the associations between clinical laboratory indices and CKD and to develop prediction and prognostic models for CKD risk assessment and disease progression. Design & Methods: Between January 2008 and June 2018, we enrolled 500 healthy controls, 445 patients with early-stage CKD (G1-G2), and 527 patients with CKD G5 at the First Hospital of China Medical University. Logistic regression analyses were performed to identify independent predictors for the presence of CKD and progression to advanced disease, which were subsequently incorporated into visual nomograms. Model performance was evaluated using area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC) and calibration plots. Clinical utility was assessed using decision curve analysis (DCA) and clinical impact curves (CIC). Results: The early-stage CKD prediction nomogram achieved an AUC of 0.981 in the training set and 0.969 in the validation set. The progression nomogram demonstrated AUC values of 0.984 and 0.972 in the training and validation sets, respectively. DCA and CIC analyses further confirmed the clinical relevance and potential applicability of both models. Conclusions: We developed and validated early-stage prediction and progression assessment for CKD, demonstrating high discriminative ability, good calibration, and significant clinical utility. These models may facilitate early detection and dynamic risk assessment in CKD management.
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.