MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4397045564 · doi:10.1681/asn.20233411s171a

External Validation of the Klinrisk Model in US Commercial, Medicare Advantage, and Medicaid Populations

2023· article· en· W4397045564 on OpenAlexaff
Navdeep Tangri, Thomas W. Ferguson, Ryan J. Bamforth, Chia‐Chen Teng, Joseph L. Smith, Maria Guzman, Ashley Goss

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Society of Nephrology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicDiverse Scientific Research Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicaidMedicineActuarial scienceBusinessEconomicsHealth careEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is typically undiagnosed till the majority of kidney function (eGFR) is lost. Accurate risk prediction tools for progressive CKD can enable early intervention for high risk individuals. The Klinrisk machine learning model accurately predicts progressive CKD using routinely collected laboratory data. We aimed to validate this model in US commercial, Medicare Advantage, and Medicaid populations. Methods: The Klinrisk random survival forest model predicts progressive CKD (40% decline in eGFR or kidney failure) using the values of age, sex, and 20 laboratory variables, including results from complete blood cell counts, chemistry panels, comprehensive metabolic panels, and urinalysis. We assessed model performance at 2- and 5- years post-index (first available serum creatinine result) in patients with/without urinalysis results (albumin-to-creatinine ratio, protein-to-creatinine-ratio, and semi-quantitative dipstick) in a large representative US population. Performance was assessed with discrimination (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve), Brier scores, and calibration plots. Results: A total of 4,410,131 patients were evaluated with commercial insurance, 341,666 with Medicare Advantage, and 93,056 patients with Medicaid coverage. Discrimination was excellent across all forms of payor and with or without the results of urinalysis. In all cohorts, for prediction of the progression, AUCs ranged between 0.80 to 0.83 at 2 years, and 0.78-0.83 at 5 years. When urinalysis data were available, AUCs ranged between 0.81 to 0.87 at 2 years, and 0.80 to 0.87 at 5 years (Table). Brier scores were below 0.071 (0.068 to 0.075) for each combination of urinalysis availability and insurer type. Conclusions: A machine model trained on routine laboratory data can predict progression of CKD in a large representative US population of adults with or at risk for kidney disease. Implementation of the Klinrisk model can help identify patients who benefit from early intervention to delay CKD progression and reduce health care costs. Funding: Commercial Support - Boehringer Ingelheim AUC at 2- and 5- years (95% confidence interval) - Insurer All patients Commercial, n = 4,410,131 Medicare, n = 4,410,131 Medicaid, n = 93,056 UACR directly measured Commercial, n = 178,266 Medicare, n = 25,954 Medicaid, n = 9,353 Urine ACR or urine PCR Commercial, n = 193,992 Medicare, n = 28,120 Medicaid, n = 10,108 Urine ACR, urine PCR, or semi-quantitative dipstick result Commercial, n = 1,061,762 Medicare, n = 92,410 Medicare, n = 38,867 Commercial (2 years) Commercial (5 years) 0.83 (0.82 - 0.83)0.81 (0.81 - 0.81) 0.86 (0.85 - 0.87)0.84 (0.83 - 0.85) 0.86 (0.85 - 0.87)0.85 (0.84 - 0.85) 0.87 (0.86 - 0.97)0.85 (0.84 - 0.85) Medicare (2 years) Medicare (5 years) 0.80 (0.79 - 0.80)0.78 (0.78 - 0.79) 0.79 (0.77 - 0.80)0.78 (0.77 - 0.79) 0.79 (0.78 - 0.81)0.78 (0.77 - 0.80) 0.81 (0.80 - 0.82)0.80 (0.79 - 0.80) Medicare (2 years) Medicare (5 years) 0.83 (0.83 - 0.83)0.83 (0.83 - 0.83) 0.84 (0.81 - 0.87)0.87 (0.84 - 0.90) 0.84 (0.81 - 0.87)0.86 (0.83 - 0.90) 0.84 (0.83 - 0.86)0.87 (0.85 - 0.89)

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.043
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.055
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.227

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0430.055
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.115
GPT teacher head0.462
Teacher spread0.347 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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 topicDiverse Scientific Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207