ReviewCureus2026
Machine Learning and Artificial Intelligence Approaches for Predicting Arteriovenous Fistula Dysfunction in Hemodialysis: A Systematic Review.
Review in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- An interpretable XGBoost model for predicting arteriovenous fistula dysfunction in end stage renal disease.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
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
Arteriovenous fistula (AVF) is the preferred vascular access for hemodialysis patients; however, AVF dysfunction remains a common complication that compromises dialysis adequacy and patient outcomes. Traditional risk prediction methods have limited ability to capture complex, multifactorial interactions. Machine learning (ML) and artificial intelligence (AI) offer promising approaches for enhancing predictive accuracy. This systematic review aims to critically synthesize current evidence on AI and ML approaches for predicting AVF dysfunction in hemodialysis patients. A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science for original peer-reviewed studies published in English between January 2021 and December 2025. Studies were included if they applied AI or ML techniques to predict AVF dysfunction (including stenosis, thrombosis, occlusion, patency failure, or access dysfunction) in adult hemodialysis patients. Data extraction covered study characteristics, AI/ML models, input variables, validation methods, and performance metrics. Risk of bias was assessed using the Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST). A narrative synthesis was performed due to substantial methodological heterogeneity. Ten studies met the inclusion criteria. Most studies were retrospective cohort designs, originating predominantly from China and the USA, with sample sizes ranging from 150 to nearly 60,000 patients. Predicted outcomes included thrombosis, stenosis, occlusion, and patency failure. Ensemble tree-based models (random forest, XGBoost, and LightGBM) consistently outperformed conventional statistical and regression-based approaches, including logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards models, achieving AUC-ROC values between 0.80 and 0.98. Key predictors included prior surgeries, inflammatory markers, imaging parameters, and, in one study, acoustic features from AVF sounds. PROBAST assessment indicated low risk of bias for eight studies and some concerns for two studies, primarily related to incomplete reporting of calibration or sample size. AI and ML models, particularly ensemble tree-based methods, demonstrate good to excellent discrimination for predicting AVF dysfunction in hemodialysis patients. However, external and prospective validation remain lacking, and heterogeneity in outcome definitions limits direct comparisons. Future research should focus on externally validated, clinically implementable models with standardized reporting of calibration and decision curve analysis.
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.