Cited by 11Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationArtificial Intelligence in HealthcareMachine Learning in Healthcare

Combining human and AI could predict nephrologies future, but should be handled with care

Alhasan, Khalid, Raina, Rupesh, Jamal, Amr, Temsah, Mohamad‐Hani·2023·Acta Paediatrica

Abstract

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/apa.16867

Cites

10 of 10 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Alhasan, K., Raina, R., Jamal, A., & Temsah, M.
Affiliations
  • King Faisal Specialist Hospital & Research Centre (SA)
  • Akron Children's Hospital (US)
  • King Saud University (SA)
Corresponding author
Temsah, Mohamad‐Hani
Venue
Acta Paediatrica
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2023-06-12
Volume
112
Issue
9
Pages
1844-1848
ISSN
  • 0365-1436 (ISSN-L)
  • 0803-5253
  • 1651-2227
OpenAlex
W4379508423
Cited by
11
References
10
Citations by year
2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 4
FWCI
0.44
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Acta Paediatrica (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning in Healthcare
Keywords
artificial intelligence, nephrology, kidney disease prediction, human-AI collaboration, pediatric nephrology

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