Cited by 10Acute Kidney Injury ResearchMachine Learning in HealthcareArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare

Multicenter Development and Validation of a Multimodal Deep Learning Model to Predict Moderate to Severe AKI

Open access
Koyner, Jay L., Martin, Jennie, Carey, Kyle A., Caskey, John, Edelson, Dana P., Mayampurath, Anoop, Dligach, Dmitriy, Afshar, Majid +1 more·2025·Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology

Abstract

Key Points We developed and validated a multimodal (structured and unstructured data) model to predict moderate to severe AKI using multicenter data. This multimodal AKI risk score accurately identifies patients who will develop stage 2 AKI over 2 days earlier than serum creatinine alone. The multimodal model performed better than a model based solely on structured data and performed similarly during temporal and site-based validation. Background Prior models for the early identification of AKI have used structured data ( e.g ., vital signs and laboratory values). We aimed to develop and validate a deep learning model to predict moderate to severe AKI by combining structured data and information from unstructured notes. Methods Adults (18 years or older) admitted to the University of Wisconsin (2009–2020) and the University of Chicago Medicine (2016–2022) were eligible for inclusion. Patients were excluded if they had no documented serum creatinine (SCr), ESKD, an admission SCr ≥3.0 mg/dl, developed ≥stage 2 AKI before reaching the wards or intensive care unit, or required dialysis (KRT) within the first 48 hours. Text from unstructured notes was mapped to standardized concept unique identifiers to create predictor variables, and structured data variables were also included. An intermediate fusion deep learning recurrent neural network architecture was used to predict ≥stage 2 AKI within the next 48 hours. This multimodal model was developed in the first 80% of the data and t…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2215/cjn.0000000695

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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
Koyner, J. L., Martin, J., Carey, K. A., Caskey, J., Edelson, D. P., Mayampurath, A., Dligach, D., Afshar, M., & Churpek, M. M.
Affiliations
  • University of Chicago (US)
  • University of Wisconsin–Madison (US)
  • Loyola University Chicago (US)
Venue
Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology
Published
2025-04-15
Volume
20
Issue
6
Pages
766-778
ISSN
  • 1555-9041 (ISSN-L)
  • 1555-905X
OpenAlex
W4409448457
Cited by
10
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 3
FWCI
6.88
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (R01DK126933)
  • National Institutes of Health (R01 LM012973)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Nephrology › Acute Kidney Injury Research
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
Keywords
acute kidney injury, AKI risk prediction, multimodal deep learning, unstructured clinical notes, electronic health records, recurrent neural networks, serum creatinine, renal replacement therapy, intensive care unit, temporal validation, external validation, clinical decision support, mortality risk stratification, multimorbidity, comorbidities

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