MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Mortality Risk Prediction Models for People With Kidney Failure

2025· review· en· W4406049359 on OpenAlexafffund
Faisal Jarrar, Meghann Pasternak, Tyrone G. Harrison, Matthew T. James, Robert R. Quinn, Ngan N. Lam, Maoliosa Donald, Meghan J. Elliott, Diane Lorenzetti, Giovanni FM Strippoli, Ping Liu, Simon Sawhney, Thomas Alexander Gerds, Pietro Ravani

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA Network Open · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDialysis and Renal Disease Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchAlberta InnovatesKidney Foundation of CanadaUniversity of Calgary
KeywordsMedicineComputer scienceRisk analysis (engineering)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Importance: People with kidney failure have a high risk of death and poor quality of life. Mortality risk prediction models may help them decide which form of treatment they prefer. Objective: To systematically review the quality of existing mortality prediction models for people with kidney failure and assess whether they can be applied in clinical practice. Evidence Review: MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched for studies published between January 1, 2004, and September 30, 2024. Studies were included if they created or evaluated mortality prediction models for people who developed kidney failure, whether treated or not treated with kidney replacement with hemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis. Studies including exclusively kidney transplant recipients were excluded. Two reviewers independently extracted data and graded each study at low, high, or unclear risk of bias and applicability using recommended checklists and tools. Reviewers used the Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool and followed prespecified questions about study design, prediction framework, modeling algorithm, performance evaluation, and model deployment. Analyses were completed between January and October 2024. Findings: A total of 7184 unique abstracts were screened for eligibility. Of these, 77 were selected for full-text review, and 50 studies that created all-cause mortality prediction models were included, with 2 963 157 total participants, who had a median (range) age of 64 (52-81) years. Studies had a median (range) proportion of women of 42% (2%-54%). Included studies were at high risk of bias due to inadequate selection of study population (27 studies [54%]), shortcomings in methods of measurement of predictors (15 [30%]) and outcome (12 [24%]), and flaws in the analysis strategy (50 [100%]). Concerns for applicability were also high, as study participants (31 [62%]), predictors (17 [34%]), and outcome (5 [10%]) did not fit the intended target clinical setting. One study (2%) reported decision curve analysis, and 15 (30%) included a tool to enhance model usability. Conclusions and Relevance: According to this systematic review of 50 studies, published mortality prediction models were at high risk of bias and had applicability concerns for clinical practice. New mortality prediction models are needed to inform treatment decisions in people with kidney failure.

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)0.063
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.271
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.063
Threshold uncertainty score0.331

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0630.271
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.017
Bibliometrics0.0100.010
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0070.006
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.294 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations9
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAMA Network OpenSame topicDialysis and Renal Disease ManagementFrench-language works237,207