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 accessAbstract
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
The cited source doesn’t support the claim as written.
In the citing paper
“Many research groups have tackled early prediction of AKI using electronic health records (EHR) data [8–11], but no model so far explains the rationale behind specific predictions despite a clear need for explainable and actionable predictions [6, 12].”
From Machine learning model for early prediction of acute kidney injury (AKI) in pediatric critical care (2021) · cites this paper as [9]
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“it was predominantly made up of data from older non-Black men; the average age was 62 years old and over 90% were males.”
From Bias in artificial intelligence algorithms and recommendations for mitigation (2023) · cites this paper as [27]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“An example of this includes an algorithm developed to predict acute kidney injury (AKI) using clinical data from the US Department of Veteran Affairs [27].”
From Bias in artificial intelligence algorithms and recommendations for mitigation (2023) · cites this paper as [27]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Though the dataset used to develop the algorithm was large and diverse, containing data from over 700,000 patients from multiple centers”
From Bias in artificial intelligence algorithms and recommendations for mitigation (2023) · cites this paper as [27]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Models that use EHR, laboratory, and physiological data predict outcomes such as acute kidney injury [14] and sepsis or critical-care deterioration [15,16].”
In the citing paper
“Model achieves a higher ROC AUC in shorter time windows.”
From Edge AI for Early Detection of Chronic Diseases and the Spread of Infectious Diseases: Opportunities, Challenges, and Future Directions (2023) · cites this paper as [80]
In the citing paper
“The model achieves a lower PR AUC in shorter time windows.”
From Edge AI for Early Detection of Chronic Diseases and the Spread of Infectious Diseases: Opportunities, Challenges, and Future Directions (2023) · cites this paper as [80]
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
Hochreiter, S., & Schmidhuber, J. (1997) · Neural Computation · doi:10.1162/neco.1997.9.8.1735 · Cited by 102,318
Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimization
Kingma, D. P., & Ba, J. (2014) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1412.6980 · Cited by 98,946
An Introduction to the Bootstrap
Efron, B., & Tibshirani, R. J. (1994) · doi:10.1201/9780429246593 · Cited by 40,500
On a Test of Whether one of Two Random Variables is Stochastically Larger than the Other
Mann, H. B., & Whitney, D. R. (1947) · The Annals of Mathematical Statistics · doi:10.1214/aoms/1177730491 · Cited by 14,320
(2010) · Cited by 14,134
Self-citationEmpirical Evaluation of Gated Recurrent Neural Networks on Sequence Modeling
Chung, J., Gulcehre, C., Cho, K., & Bengio, Y. (2014) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1412.3555 · Cited by 11,008
TensorFlow: Large-Scale Machine Learning on Heterogeneous Distributed Systems
Abadi, M., Agarwal, A., Barham, P., Brevdo, E., Chen, Z., Citro, C., Corrado, G. S., Davis, A., Dean, J., Devin, M., et al. (2016) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1603.04467 · Cited by 9,408
KDIGO Clinical Practice Guidelines for Acute Kidney Injury
Khwaja, A. (2012) · Nephron Clinical Practice · doi:10.1159/000339789 · Cited by 8,297
Saito, T., & Rehmsmeier, M. (2015) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0118432 · Cited by 5,309
Simple and Scalable Predictive Uncertainty Estimation using Deep Ensembles
Lakshminarayanan, B., Pritzel, A., & Blundell, C. (2016) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1612.01474 · Cited by 3,666
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- 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).
- Lei, T. & Zhang, Y. Training RNNs as fast as CNNs. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/1709.02755v1 (2017). · arXiv
- 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
Rajpurkar, P., Chen, E., Banerjee, O., & Topol, E. J. (2022) · Nature Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41591-021-01614-0 · Cited by 3,212
Key challenges for delivering clinical impact with artificial intelligence
Kelly, C. J., Karthikesalingam, A., Suleyman, M., Corrado, G., & King, D. (2019) · BMC Medicine · doi:10.1186/s12916-019-1426-2 · Cited by 3,136
Self-citationAcosta, J. N., Falcone, G. J., Rajpurkar, P., & Topol, E. J. (2022) · Nature Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41591-022-01981-2 · Cited by 1,365
Harnessing multimodal data integration to advance precision oncology
Boehm, K. M., Khosravi, P., Vanguri, R., Gao, J., & Shah, S. P. (2022) · Nature Reviews Cancer · doi:10.1038/s41568-021-00408-3 · Cited by 662
Improving the accuracy of medical diagnosis with causal machine learning
Richens, J. G., Lee, C. M., & Johri, S. (2020) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-020-17419-7 · Cited by 598
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.
- ORCID
- Venue
- Nature
- Published
- 2019-07-31
- Volume
- 572
- Issue
- 7767
- Pages
- 116-119
- ISSN
- 0028-0836 (ISSN-L)
- 1476-4687
- PMC
- PMC6722431
- 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
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Licence
- 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
