Use of Deep Learning to Predict Acute Kidney Injury After Intravenous Contrast Media Administration: Prediction Model Development Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Precise prediction of contrast media-induced acute kidney injury (CIAKI) is an important issue because of its relationship with poor outcomes. OBJECTIVE: Herein, we examined whether a deep learning algorithm could predict the risk of intravenous CIAKI better than other machine learning and logistic regression models in patients undergoing computed tomography (CT). METHODS: A total of 14,185 patients who were administered intravenous contrast media for CT at the preventive and monitoring facility in Seoul National University Hospital were reviewed. CIAKI was defined as an increase in serum creatinine of ≥0.3 mg/dL within 2 days or ≥50% within 7 days. Using both time-varying and time-invariant features, machine learning models, such as the recurrent neural network (RNN), light gradient boosting machine (LGM), extreme gradient boosting machine (XGB), random forest (RF), decision tree (DT), support vector machine (SVM), κ-nearest neighbors, and logistic regression, were developed using a training set, and their performance was compared using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) in a test set. RESULTS: CIAKI developed in 261 cases (1.8%). The RNN model had the highest AUROC of 0.755 (0.708-0.802) for predicting CIAKI, which was superior to that obtained from other machine learning models. Although CIAKI was defined as an increase in serum creatinine of ≥0.5 mg/dL or ≥25% within 3 days, the highest performance was achieved in the RNN model with an AUROC of 0.716 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.664-0.768). In feature ranking analysis, the albumin level was the most highly contributing factor to RNN performance, followed by time-varying kidney function. CONCLUSIONS: Application of a deep learning algorithm improves the predictability of intravenous CIAKI after CT, representing a basis for future clinical alarming and preventive systems.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".