Multicenter Development and Validation of a Multimodal Deep Learning Model to Predict Moderate to Severe AKI
Open accessAbstract
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Only a small number of studies connected multimodal predictions to clinical interventions.
“Only a small number of studies connected multimodal predictions to clinical interventions [36–39]”
From Multimodal Artificial Intelligence for Precision Critical Care: A Scoping Review (2026) · cites this paper as [38]
Only 5 studies reported calibration metrics.
“In addition, only 5 studies reported calibration metrics, which are crucial for assessing model reliability [38,63,113,120,121].”
From Multimodal Artificial Intelligence for Precision Critical Care: A Scoping Review (2026) · cites this paper as [38]
Cites
A clinically applicable approach to continuous prediction of future acute kidney injury
Tomašev, N., Glorot, X., Rae, J. W., Zielinski, M., Askham, H., Saraiva, A., Mottram, A., Meyer, C., Ravuri, S., Protsyuk, I., et al. (2019) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-019-1390-1 · Cited by 1,086 · see citing works
Multimodal deep learning for biomedical data fusion: a review
Stahlschmidt, S. R., Ulfenborg, B., & Synnergren, J. (2022) · Briefings in Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bib/bbab569 · Cited by 766 · cited 1× · see citing works
“33 The structured data were passed through a fully connected layer to create an embedding-like representation (Figure 1).”
Calibration drift in regression and machine learning models for acute kidney injury
Davis, S. E., Lasko, T. A., Chen, G., Siew, E. D., & Matheny, M. E. (2017) · Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association · doi:10.1093/jamia/ocx030 · Cited by 312 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Multimodal Artificial Intelligence for Precision Critical Care: A Scoping Review
Yang, M., Shi, N., Chen, H., Po, E. Y. P., Ng, P. Y., Lai, P. C. K., Wu, Y.-C., & Fong, D. Y. T. (2026) · Health Data Science · doi:10.34133/hds.0356 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
“In this review, only 8 studies performed independent external validation [ 38 , 41 , 42 , 46 , 63 , 93 , 113 , 114 ], revealing an average 3.5% decrease in AUC on external datasets.”
Influential
- 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)
- ORCID
- 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