Role of artificial intelligence in the diagnosis and management of kidney disease: applications to chronic kidney disease and acute kidney injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Chronic kidney disease (CKD) and acute kidney injury (AKI) are global public health problems associated with a significant burden of morbidity, healthcare resource use, and all-cause mortality. This review explores recently published studies that take a machine learning approach to the diagnosis, management, and prognostication in patients with AKI or CKD. RECENT FINDINGS: The release of novel therapeutics for CKD has highlighted the importance of accurately identifying patients at the highest risk of progression. Many models have been constructed with reasonable predictive accuracy but have not been extensively externally validated and peer reviewed. Similarly, machine learning models have been developed for prediction of AKI and have found sufficient accuracy. There are issues to implementing these models, however, with conflicting results with respect to the relationship between prediction of an AKI outcome and improvements in the occurrence of other adverse events, and in some circumstances potential harm. SUMMARY: Artificial intelligence models can help guide management of CKD and AKI, but it is important to ensure that they are broadly applicable and generalizable to various settings and associated with improved clinical decision-making and outcomes.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".