MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4397042047 · doi:10.1681/asn.20233411s1418c

External Validation of a Machine Learning Model for Progression of CKD in the CREDENCE and CANVAS Trials

2023· article· en· W4397042047 on OpenAlexaff
Navdeep Tangri, Thomas W. Ferguson, Ryan J. Bamforth, Clare Arnott, Kenneth W. Mahaffey, Hiddo J.L. Heerspink, Vlado Perkovic, Brendon L. Neuen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Society of Nephrology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCredenceMedicineMedical physicsIntensive care medicineComputer scienceInternal medicineMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Sodium glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) are indicated for slowing progression of chronic kidney disease (CKD). A previously validated machine learning model (Klinrisk model) accurately predicts 40% decline in eGFR or kidney failure using routinely collected laboratory data. We sought to validate this model in the pooled CANVAS/CREDENCE trials. Methods: The CANVAS/CREDENCE trials evaluated the effects of the SGLT2i canagliflozin on cardiorenal outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes at high cardiovascular risk or with CKD. We validated the Klinrisk model for prediction of CKD progression, defined as greater than 40% decline in eGFR or kidney failure. The model applies results from complete blood cell counts, chemistry panels, comprehensive metabolic panels, and urinalysis. Model performance was assessed up to 3 years (median follow up 2.4 years) with the area under the receiver characteristic operating curve (AUC), Brier scores, and calibration plots of observed and predicted risks. We compared performance of the model to standard of care using eGFR (G1-G4) and urine ACR (A1-A3) KDIGO heatmap categories. Results: Among 14,464 patients in CANVAS/CREDENCE, we found the Klinrisk model provided excellent discrimination for CKD progression (696 events at 2 years), with an AUC of 0.81 (95% confidence interval 0.78 - 0.83) for prediction of the outcome at 1 year, increasing to 0.88 (0.86 - 0.89) at 3 years. Brier scores were 0.020 (0.018 - 0.022) at 1 year, increasing to 0.056 (0.052 - 0.059) at 3 years. Calibration was satisfactory, with minor overprediction in patients randomized to canagliflozin. Compared to the KDIGO heatmap, the Klinrisk model had improved performance at every interval (Table 1). Table 1. - Results of model performance Klinrisk model Klinrisk model eGFR and ACR categories (KDIGO heatmap) eGFR and ACR categories (KDIGO heatmap) Time frame, years AUC (95% CI) Brier score (95% CI) AUC (95% CI) Brier score (95% CI) 1 0.81 (0.78 - 0.83) 0.020 (0.018 - 0.022) 0.74 (0.71 - 0.76) 0.021 (0.018 - 0.023) 2 0.85 (0.84 - 0.87) 0.042 (0.039 - 0.046) 0.79 (0.78 - 0.81) 0.046 (0.042 - 0.050) 3 0.88 (0.86 - 0.89) 0.056 (0.052 - 0.059) 0.83 (0.81 - 0.84) 0.063 (0.059 - 0.067) Brier scores range from 0 to 1, with lower values representing higher accuracy. Conclusions: The Klinrisk machine learning model using routinely collected laboratory features was highly accurate in its prediction of CKD progression in the CANVAS and CREDENCE trials.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.682
Threshold uncertainty score0.254

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.278
GPT teacher head0.528
Teacher spread0.251 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Society of NephrologySame topicArtificial Intelligence in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207