ArticleKidney international reports2026
Renal Clinical Study Participants Support Data Sharing and Use of Artificial Intelligence.
Article in Kidney international reports, 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
27 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Kidney diseases are a global health concern. Sharing data from renal clinical studies and the use of artificial intelligence (AI) can advance research in these pathologies. Understanding participant attitudes toward these practices is essential for ethical and effective implementation. This study explored their perspectives using a structured survey, based on the hypothesis that participants held positive views of data sharing and AI use. Methods: The survey was distributed to European clinical centers. It included 42 questions assessing attitudes toward data sharing, AI use, and collecting explanatory variables. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, Cronbach's alpha for internal consistency, statistical tests to evaluate the effect of selected variables, regression to identify predictors of attitudes, and principal component analysis (PCA) to explore underlying factors. Results: Participants expressed positive views about data sharing (mean score: 0.52 ± 0.24) and AI use (0.33 ± 0.24) on a normalized scale from -1 (negative) to 1 (positive). Internal consistency was high. Regression analysis identified institutional trust and family income as predictors of attitudes toward data sharing. Health status, institutional trust, and AI knowledge were predictors of attitudes toward AI, indicating that those with better health, more institutional trust, and higher AI knowledge had a more favorable view. PCA revealed 2 distinct dimensions for data sharing (benefits and concerns) and 1 for AI (concerns). Conclusion: Renal clinical study participants generally support data sharing and AI use, although views on AI are less favorable in patients than healthy volunteers. Institutional trust shapes attitudes in both areas, highlighting the relation between both domains.
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.