Cited by 128Machine Learning in HealthcareChronic Kidney Disease and DiabetesArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare

Risk prediction for chronic kidney disease progression using heterogeneous electronic health record data and time series analysis

Open access
Perotte, Adler, Ranganath, Rajesh, Hirsch, Jamie S, Blei, David, Elhadad, Noémie·2015·Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association

Abstract

Background As adoption of electronic health records continues to increase, there is an opportunity to incorporate clinical documentation as well as laboratory values and demographics into risk prediction modeling. Objective The authors develop a risk prediction model for chronic kidney disease (CKD) progression from stage III to stage IV that includes longitudinal data and features drawn from clinical documentation. Methods The study cohort consisted of 2908 primary-care clinic patients who had at least three visits prior to January 1, 2013 and developed CKD stage III during their documented history. Development and validation cohorts were randomly selected from this cohort and the study datasets included longitudinal inpatient and outpatient data from these populations. Time series analysis (Kalman filter) and survival analysis (Cox proportional hazards) were combined to produce a range of risk models. These models were evaluated using concordance, a discriminatory statistic. Results A risk model incorporating longitudinal data on clinical documentation and laboratory test results (concordance 0.849) predicts progression from state III CKD to stage IV CKD more accurately when compared to a similar model without laboratory test results (concordance 0.733, P<.001), a model that only considers the most recent laboratory test results (concordance 0.819, P < .031) and a model based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (concordance 0.779, P < .001). Conclusions A risk prediction model that takes longitudinal laboratory test results and clinical documentation into consideration can predict CKD progression from stage III to stage IV more accurately than three models that do not take all of these variables into consideration.

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 · 10.1093/jamia/ocv024

Cites

60 of 60 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?

  • The Perotte et al. model was not compared with conventional simpler machine learning classifiers, and collective matrix factorization becomes inherently difficult to interpret.

    “For example, the Perotte et al.99 model was not compared with conventional simpler machine learning classifiers, and collective matrix factorization becomes inherently difficult to interpret79.”

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [18]Callaghan FM Jackson MT Demner-Fushman D NLP-derived information improves the estimates of risk of disease compared to estimates based on manually extracted data alone. In: 5th International Symposium on Semantic Mining in Biomedicine. 2012:18–25.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Perotte, A., Ranganath, R., Hirsch, J. S., Blei, D., & Elhadad, N.
Affiliations
  • Columbia University (US)
  • Princeton University (US)
Corresponding author
Perotte, Adler
Venue
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
Published
2015-04-20
Volume
22
Issue
4
Pages
872-880
ISSN
  • 1067-5027 (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-974X
OpenAlex
W2119033610
Cited by
128
References
60
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 2
FWCI
9.48
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (1344668, 0745520, 1009542, 1247664)
  • Alfred P. Sloan Foundation (0745520, IIS-1009542)
  • Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (FA8750, FA8750‐14‐2‐0009)
  • Advanced Research Projects Agency
  • Office of Naval Research (N00014-11-1-0651, IIS-1009542, 0745520, N00014)
  • U.S. National Library of Medicine (T15LM007079)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Nephrology › Chronic Kidney Disease and Diabetes
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
Keywords
chronic kidney disease progression, risk prediction model, electronic health records, clinical documentation, Kalman filter, Cox proportional hazards model, estimated glomerular filtration rate, primary care patients, heterogeneous data integration
MeSH terms
Aged, Female, Glomerular Filtration Rate, Humans, Longitudinal Studies, Male, Middle Aged, Models, Theoretical, Primary Health Care, Time, Cohort Studies, Proportional Hazards Models, Survival Analysis, Disease Progression, Risk Assessment, Renal Insufficiency, Chronic, Electronic Health Records

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