Development and External Validation of a Machine Learning Model for Progression of CKD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Prediction of disease progression at all stages of chronic kidney disease (CKD) may help improve patient outcomes. As such, we aimed to develop and externally validate a random forest model to predict progression of CKD using demographics and laboratory data. Methods: and a urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio (ACR) available were included from Manitoba and 107,097 from Alberta. We considered >80 laboratory features, including analytes from complete blood cell counts, chemistry panels, liver enzymes, urine analysis, and quantification of urine albumin and protein. The primary outcome in our study was a 40% decline in eGFR or kidney failure. We assessed model discrimination using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and calibration using plots of observed and predicted risks. Results: The final model achieved an AUC of 0.88 (95% CI 0.87-0.89) at 2 years and 0.84 (0.83-0.85) at 5 years in internal testing. Discrimination and calibration were preserved in the external validation data set with AUC scores of 0.87 (0.86-0.88) at 2 years and 0.84 (0.84-0.86) at 5 years. The top 30% of individuals predicted as high risk and intermediate risk represent 87% of CKD progression events in 2 years and 77% of progression events in 5 years. Conclusion: A machine learning model that leverages routinely collected laboratory data can predict eGFR decline or kidney failure with accuracy.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".