ArticleResearch square2026
Acoustic-based Stenosis Detection for Dialysis Patients using Explainable Machine Learning.
Article in Research square, 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Ensuring the long-term patency of arteriovenous fistulas (AVFs) is essential for patients undergoing hemodialysis, yet existing monitoring methods often lack the accessibility and interpretability required for routine point-of-care use. In this study, we performed a comparative evaluation of classical machine learning (ML) models versus a state-of-the-art Vision Transformer (ViT) deep learning (DL) architecture for automated detection of AVF stenosis using non-invasive acoustic recordings. Our approach employed a comprehensive pipeline combining expert-designed acoustic features-such as Mel-frequency cepstral coefficients (MFCCs) and peak amplitude-with anatomical metadata to train a range of classical classifiers. These models were compared against a ViT trained on Mel-spectrogram representations of the same recordings. The results show that classical ML models, whether applied to individual anatomical sites or using universal models informed by anatomical context, consistently outperformed the ViT deep model. At the patient level, both approaches achieved comparable performance, with an F1 score of 0.91. Importantly, integrating Explainable AI (XAI) through SHAP analysis demonstrated that classical models base their predictions on physiologically meaningful features-such as elevated signal energy and spectral shifts-that reflect the hemodynamic turbulence associated with stenosis. By combining high precision with interpretability, classical ML offers a clinically reliable framework for early-stage AVF monitoring, with the potential to enhance long-term vascular access outcomes.
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.