ArticleClinical kidney journal2026
Artificial intelligence for predicting paediatric acute kidney injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Clinical kidney journal, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Acute kidney injury (AKI) in hospitalised children is a major complication associated with significant morbidity and mortality. The integration of artificial intelligence (AI)/machine learning (ML) models may enable early detection and risk stratification. This systematic review evaluates the performance of AI/ML models for predicting paediatric AKI across clinical settings. Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science for studies applying AI/ML models to predict AKI in paediatric populations. Studies reporting performance metrics such as the area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), accuracy, and F1 score were included. Results: Among 470 records identified, 11 studies met the inclusion criteria, with 14 AI/ML models used. The overall sample size included 33 949 paediatric patients with an AKI proportion of 12.5%. Meta-analyses of the AUC were conducted on neural network, gradient boosting, and logistic regression. Gradient boosting had the highest pooled AUC of 0.873 (95% confidence interval 0.836-0.909). Random forest demonstrated the highest median sensitivity (0.821), specificity (0.942), PPV (0.860), NPV (0.935), and accuracy (0.821); however, these metrics could not be pooled due to inconsistent reporting and limited validation. Conclusion: Gradient boosting, random forest, and logistic regression demonstrated reasonable predictive performance for paediatric AKI prediction within specific clinical contexts. However, small sample size, heterogeneity, lack of testing/validation cohorts, insufficient data, and inconsistent patient populations and AKI diagnostic criteria restrict generalisability.
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.