Cited by 1,086Machine Learning in HealthcareAcute Kidney Injury ResearchArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 62 of the 62 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A clinically applicable approach to continuous prediction of future acute kidney injury

Open access

Abstract

The early prediction of deterioration could have an important role in supporting healthcare professionals, as an estimated 11% of deaths in hospital follow a failure to promptly recognize and treat deteriorating patients 1. To achieve this goal requires predictions of patient risk that are continuously updated and accurate, and delivered at an individual level with sufficient context and enough time to act. Here we develop a deep learning approach for the continuous risk prediction of future deterioration in patients, building on recent work that models adverse events from electronic health records 2-17 and using acute kidney injury-a common and potentially life-threatening condition 18-as an exemplar. Our model was developed on a large, longitudinal dataset of electronic health records that cover diverse clinical environments, comprising 703,782 adult patients across 172 inpatient and 1,062 outpatient sites. Our model predicts 55.8% of all inpatient episodes of acute kidney injury, and 90.2% of all acute kidney injuries that required subsequent administration of dialysis, with a lead time of up to 48 h and a ratio of 2 false alerts for every true alert. In addition to predicting future acute kidney injury, our model provides confidence assessments and a list of the clinical features that are most salient to each prediction, alongside predicted future trajectories for clinically relevant blood tests 9. Although the recognition and prompt treatment of acute kidney injury is known to be challenging, our approach may offer opportunities for identifying patients at risk within a time window that enables early treatment.

Overview

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 · 10.1038/s41586-019-1390-1

Cites

62 of 62 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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.

Citations

Cites

Show all 60 references

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Schulam, P. & Saria, S. Reliable decision support using counterfactual models. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 30 (eds Guyon, I. et al.) 1697–1708 (2017).
  2. Lei, T. & Zhang, Y. Training RNNs as fast as CNNs. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/1709.02755v1 (2017). · arXiv
  3. Caruana, R., Baluja, S. & Mitchell, T. in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (eds Mozer, M. et al.) 959–965 (1996).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 601–700 of 1,002

Metadata

Authors
Tomašev, N., Glorot, X., Rae, J. W., Zielinski, M., Askham, H., Saraiva, A., Mottram, A., Meyer, C., Ravuri, S., Protsyuk, I., Connell, A., Hughes, C. O., Karthikesalingam, A., Cornebise, J., Montgomery, H., Rees, G., Laing, C., Baker, C. R., Peterson, K., Reeves, R., Hassabis, D., King, D., Suleyman, M., Back, T., Nielson, C., Ledsam, J. R., & Mohamed, S.
Affiliations
  • Google DeepMind (United Kingdom) (GB)
  • University College London (GB)
  • University College Hospital (GB)
  • United States Department of Veterans Affairs (US)
  • University of Utah (US)
  • University of Nevada, Reno (US)
Corresponding author
  • Tomašev, Nenad
  • Ledsam, Joseph R.
Venue
Nature
Published
2019-07-31
Volume
572
Issue
7767
Pages
116-119
ISSN
  • 0028-0836 (ISSN-L)
  • 1476-4687
OpenAlex
W2964696298
Cited by
1,086
References
60
Citations by year
2026: 123 · 2025: 149 · 2024: 122 · 2023: 150 · 2022: 154 · 2021: 169 · 2020: 180 · 2019: 39
FWCI
61.95
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Institutes of Health (VA999999)
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, deep learning, electronic health records, clinical deterioration, dialysis requirement, confidence estimation, false alarms, clinical decision support
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Computer Simulation, False Positive Reactions, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, ROC Curve, Risk Assessment, Clinical Laboratory Techniques, Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive, Uncertainty, Young Adult, Acute Kidney Injury, Datasets as Topic

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