Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41873434›Full record

ArticleJAMIA open2026

Advanced artificial intelligence vs simpler models for 1-year death prediction among patients receiving hemodialysis.

Karthikeyan K, Jennifer E Flythe, Patrick H Pun, Wolfgang C Winkelmayer, David Carlson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMIA open, 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

5 authors.

Karthikeyan KDepartment of Computer Science, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708, United States.
Jennifer E FlytheUniversity of North Carolina (UNC) Kidney Center, Division of Nephrology and Hypertension, Department of Medicine, UNC School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, United States.
Patrick H PunDivision of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC 27710, United States.
Wolfgang C WinkelmayerSelzman Institute for Kidney Health, Section of Nephrology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX 77030, United States.
David CarlsonDepartment of Computer Science, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1005-6385

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives: We evaluated the data requirement for modern AI tools to outperform simpler models in predicting short-term mortality in over 500 000 patients with hemodialysis-dependent kidney failure. Materials and Methods: We compared logistic regression, boosting, and transformers using increasingly complex feature sets (from last-visit data to full trajectories). Performance was measured using the area under the ROC curve (AUC-ROC) and the Precision-Recall curve (AUC-PR) across training data sizes ranging from 500 to 490 197 samples. Results: Using features with temporal information is beneficial across all models. On the full dataset, Transformers (AUC-ROC = 0.8568) and boosting (AUC-ROC = 0.8598) perform similarly. Discussion: Transformers require large datasets to outperform simpler models like boosting, limiting their usefulness in smaller datasets, even on datasets as big as 500K. Conclusion: Modern AI tools require substantial data to justify their computational cost over simpler approaches. However, a more complex feature set seems to be beneficial across all models.

Indexed as

artificial intelligencehemodialysismachine learningmortalityrisk prediction

Identifiers

PMID41873434
PMCPMC13006063

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.