MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414908282 · doi:10.2196/84876

Intradialytic Hypotension Prediction in Patients with End-Stage Renal Disease: A Multimodal Data Integration Approach with Clustering and Augmentation (Preprint)

2025· preprint· en· W4414908282 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Xinran Lv, Bo Jin, Dong Cui, Lianlian You, Yu Yang, Shuxin Liu, Z X Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Medical Informatics · 2025
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHemodynamic Monitoring and Therapy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCluster analysisPredictive modellingDialysisBlood pressureKey (lock)Missing dataData modelingData integration

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

UNSTRUCTURED Hemodialysis is crucial for patients with end-stage renal disease; however, intradialytic hypotension (IDH) is a relatively common complication of hemodialysis, with serious consequences. Existing machine-learning-based IDH prediction models have limitations, including not taking account of individual differences and key clinical elements, and having high data-quality requirements. To address these issues, this study aimed to develop an Integrated Multimodal Clustering-Augmentation (IMCA) model to predict IDH. The model integrates daily measurement data and dialysis machine time-series data, and labels IDH after excluding drug-induced blood pressure changes. The model consists of an electronic health record clustering module that analyzes and integrates patient data to extract effective information; a data-augmentation module using SMOTE-TomekLink and Wasserstein GAN-GP to learn features and balance samples; and a comprehensive prediction module that selects different models for targeted prediction within different clusters according to various data. Experiments using a HD dataset of 412 patients showed that the IMCA-IDH model was robust and accurate, even with missing and imbalanced data. Different model combinations achieved excellent performances in various patient clusters, with a maximum F1 score of 0.989 and an area under the curve of 0.745. This was a single-center retrospective analysis, and further multi-center studies are needed to improve the model’s generalizability. Nevertheless, this model provides a new approach for IDH prediction and references for medical data modeling.

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)0.002
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.271 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Medical InformaticsSame topicHemodynamic Monitoring and TherapyFrench-language works237,207