MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4406619938 · doi:10.1038/s41598-025-86715-3

A machine learning-based model for predicting the risk of cognitive frailty in elderly patients on maintenance hemodialysis

2025· article· en· W4406619938 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Meng Cao, Bixia Tang, Liwei Yang, Jing Zeng

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFrailty in Older Adults
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHemodialysisCognitionComputer scienceMachine learningArtificial intelligenceGerontologyMedicineInternal medicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Elderly patients undergoing maintenance hemodialysis (MHD) face a heightened risk of cognitive frailty (CF), which significantly compromises quality of life. Early identification of at-risk individuals and timely intervention are essential. Nevertheless, current CF risk prediction models fall short in accuracy to adequately fulfill clinical requirements. This study aimed to examine the determinants of CF in elderly patients undergoing MHD and to develop a risk prediction model through machine learning algorithms. The objective is to furnish healthcare professionals with an early prediction tool and to offer insights for personalized CF risk management. A convenience sampling method was employed to select 1,075 elderly MHD patients from various tertiary-level hospitals in Chengdu between October 2023 and March 2024 as the modeling set, and 269 elderly MHD patients from hospitals in Chengdu, Yibin, and Zigong between September 2024 and October 2024 as the external validation set.CF was assessed using the Fried Phenotypic Scale for Frailty (FP) and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment Scale (MOCA). Data on patients' demographics, sleep, nutrition, depression, and social support were collected. Single-factor and multi-factor logistic regression analyses were conducted to identify the factors influencing CF. Five machine learning algorithms-Support Vector Machine (SVM), Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost), Random Forest (RF), Neural Network (NNET), and Logistic Regression (LR)-were employed to develop risk prediction models. These five models served as base classifiers, and 16 ensemble models were constructed using the Stacking method. The optimal ensemble models were identified and compared with the five individual models, followed by the selection and external validation of the most effective predictive models. Finally, the optimal models were deployed on web platforms utilizing the Streamlit library. CF prevalence was 14.2%. Significant CF risk factors included age, mode of residence, medical payment method, exercise, alcohol consumption, dialysis vascular access, serum albumin classification, serum phosphorus classification, total cholesterol classification, blood urea nitrogen classification, malnutrition score and depression score. The Stacking model showed superior performance (AUC = 0.911), with external validation confirming its accuracy (AUC = 0.832). Machine learning models, particularly Stacking, effectively predict CF risk in elderly MHD patients, providing a valuable tool for clinical intervention.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 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

Citations10
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific Reports→Same topicFrailty in Older Adults→French-language works237,207→