Cited by 19Machine Learning in HealthcareAcute Kidney Injury ResearchArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare

Forecasting acute kidney injury and resource utilization in ICU patients using longitudinal, multimodal models

Open access
Tan, Yukun, Dede, Merve, Mohanty, Vakul, Dou, Jinzhuang, Hill, Holly, Bernstam, Elmer, Chen, Ken·2024·Journal of Biomedical Informatics

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Background Advances in artificial intelligence (AI) have realized the potential of revolutionizing healthcare, such as predicting disease progression via longitudinal inspection of Electronic Health Records (EHRs) and lab tests from patients admitted to Intensive Care Units (ICU). Although substantial literature exists addressing broad subjects, including the prediction of mortality, length-of-stay, and readmission, studies focusing on forecasting Acute Kidney Injury (AKI), specifically dialysis anticipation like Continuous Renal Replacement Therapy (CRRT) are scarce. The technicality of how to implement AI remains elusive. Objective This study aims to elucidate the important factors and methods that are required to develop effective predictive models of AKI and CRRT for patients admitted to ICU, using EHRs in the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care (MIMIC) database. Methods We conducted a comprehensive comparative analysis of established predictive models, considering both time-series measurements and clinical notes from MIMIC-IV databases. Subsequently, we proposed a novel multi-modal model which integrates embeddings of top-performing unimodal models, including Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) and BioMedBERT, and leverages both unstructured clinical notes and structured time series measurements derived from EHRs to enable the early prediction of AKI and CRRT. Results Our multimodal model achieved a lead time of at least 12 h ahead of clinical manifestation, with an Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve (AUROC) of 0.888 for AKI and 0.997 for CRRT, as well as an Area Under the Precision Recall Curve (AUPRC) of 0.727 for AKI and 0.840 for CRRT, respectively, which significantly outperformed the baseline models. Additionally, we performed a SHapley Additive exPlanation (SHAP) analysis using the expected gradients algorithm, which highlighted important, previously underappreciated predictive features for AKI and CRRT. Conclusion Our study revealed the importance and the technicality of applying longitudinal, multimodal modeling to improve early prediction of AKI and CRRT, offering insights for timely interventions. The performance and interpretability of our model indicate its potential for further assessment towards clinical applications, to ultimately optimize AKI management and enhance patient outcomes.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jbi.2024.104648

Cites

63 of 64 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

1 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [41]Multitask learning and benchmarking with clinical time series data | Scientific Data. Accessed August 17, 2023. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-019-0103-9 PMC6572845 31209213

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Tan, Y., Dede, M., Mohanty, V., Dou, J., Hill, H., Bernstam, E., & Chen, K.
Affiliations
  • The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center (US)
  • The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston (US)
Corresponding author
Chen, Ken
Venue
Journal of Biomedical Informatics
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2024-06
Volume
154
Pages
104648
ISSN
1532-0464 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4396521009
Cited by
19
References
63
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 10
FWCI
2.47
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Biomedical Informatics (publishedVersion)
  • medRxiv (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • SSRN Electronic Journal (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Digital Commons-TMC (Texas Medical Center) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Cancer Institute
  • University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center (U01CA247760, U01CA281902)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Nephrology › Acute Kidney Injury Research
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
Keywords
acute kidney injury, continuous renal replacement therapy, intensive care unit patients, multimodal predictive model, LSTM, electronic health records, MIMIC-IV, early prediction, resource utilization (health care), SHAP

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review