Improving Kidney Outcomes in Patients With Nondiabetic Chronic Kidney Disease Through an Artificial Intelligence–Based Health Coaching Mobile App: Retrospective Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a global health burden. However, the efficacy of different modes of eHealth care in facilitating self-management for patients with CKD is unclear. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of a mobile app-based intelligent care system in improving the kidney outcomes of patients with CKD. METHODS: Our study was a retrospective analysis based on the KidneyOnline intelligent system developed in China. Patients with CKD but not dependent on dialysis who registered on the KidneyOnline app between January 2017 and January 2021 were screened. Patients in the the KidneyOnline intelligent system group and those in the conventional care group were 1:1 matched according to their baseline characteristics. The intervention group received center-based follow-up combined with the KidneyOnline intelligent patient care system, which was a nurse-led, patient-oriented collaborative management system. Health-related data uploaded by the patients were integrated using deep learning optical character recognition (OCR). Artificial intelligence (AI)-generated personalized recipes, lifestyle intervention suggestions, early warnings, real-time questions and answers, and personalized follow-up plans were also provided. Patients in the conventional group could get professional suggestions from the nephrologists through regular clinical visits, but they did not have access to the service provided by AI and the health coach team. Patients were followed for at least 3 months after recruitment or until death or start of renal replacement therapy. RESULTS: A total of 2060 eligible patients who registered on the KidneyOnline app from 2017 to 2021 were enrolled for the analysis. Of those, 902 (43.8%) patients were assessed for survival analysis after propensity score matching, with 451(50%) patients in the KidneyOnline intelligent patient care system group and 451(50%) patients in the conventional care group. After a mean follow-up period of 15.8 (SD 9.5) months, the primary composite kidney outcome occurred in 28 (6%) participants in the KidneyOnline intelligent patient care system group and 32 (7%) in the conventional care group, with a hazard ratio of 0.391 (95% CI 0.231-0.660; P<.001). Subgroup survival analysis demonstrated that the KidneyOnline care system significantly reduced the risk of composite kidney outcome, irrespective of age, sex, baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), and proteinuria. In addition, the mean arterial pressure (MAP) significantly decreased from 88.9 (SD 10.5) mmHg at baseline to 85.6 (SD 7.9) mmHg at 6 months (P<.001) in the KidneyOnline intelligent patient care system group and from 89.3 (SD 11.1) mmHg to 87.5 (SD 8.2) mmHg (P=.002) in the conventional CKD care group. CONCLUSIONS: The utilization of the KidneyOnline intelligent care system was associated with reduced risk of unfavorable kidney outcomes in nondiabetic patients with CKD.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".