↓ Skip to main content

Prediction of Acute Kidney Injury With a Machine Learning Algorithm Using Electronic Health Record Data

Overview of attention for article published in Canadian Journal of Kidney Health and Disease, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users
patent
9 patents

Readers on

mendeley
231 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Prediction of Acute Kidney Injury With a Machine Learning Algorithm Using Electronic Health Record Data
Published in
Canadian Journal of Kidney Health and Disease, June 2018
DOI 10.1177/2054358118776326
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

A major problem in treating acute kidney injury (AKI) is that clinical criteria for recognition are markers of established kidney damage or impaired function; treatment before such damage manifests is desirable. Clinicians could intervene during what may be a crucial stage for preventing permanent kidney injury if patients with incipient AKI and those at high risk of developing AKI could be identified. In this study, we evaluate a machine learning algorithm for early detection and prediction of AKI. We used a machine learning technique, boosted ensembles of decision trees, to train an AKI prediction tool on retrospective data taken from more than 300 000 inpatient encounters. Data were collected from inpatient wards at Stanford Medical Center and intensive care unit patients at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center. Patients older than the age of 18 whose hospital stays lasted between 5 and 1000 hours and who had at least one documented measurement of heart rate, respiratory rate, temperature, serum creatinine (SCr), and Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS). We tested the algorithm's ability to detect AKI at onset and to predict AKI 12, 24, 48, and 72 hours before onset. We tested AKI detection and prediction using the National Health Service (NHS) England AKI Algorithm as a gold standard. We additionally tested the algorithm's ability to detect AKI as defined by the Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) guidelines. We compared the algorithm's 3-fold cross-validation performance to the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score for AKI identification in terms of area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC). The algorithm demonstrated high AUROC for detecting and predicting NHS-defined AKI at all tested time points. The algorithm achieves AUROC of 0.872 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.867-0.878) for AKI detection at time of onset. For prediction 12 hours before onset, the algorithm achieves an AUROC of 0.800 (95% CI, 0.792-0.809). For 24-hour predictions, the algorithm achieves AUROC of 0.795 (95% CI, 0.785-0.804). For 48-hour and 72-hour predictions, the algorithm achieves AUROC values of 0.761 (95% CI, 0.753-0.768) and 0.728 (95% CI, 0.719-0.737), respectively. Because of the retrospective nature of this study, we cannot draw any conclusions about the impact the algorithm's predictions will have on patient outcomes in a clinical setting. The results of these experiments suggest that a machine learning-based AKI prediction tool may offer important prognostic capabilities for determining which patients are likely to suffer AKI, potentially allowing clinicians to intervene before kidney damage manifests.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 231 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 231 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 28 12%
Student > Master 24 10%
Researcher 24 10%
Student > Bachelor 19 8%
Other 13 6%
Other 37 16%
Unknown 86 37%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 47 20%
Computer Science 29 13%
Engineering 16 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 3%
Other 34 15%
Unknown 92 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 September 2026.
All research outputs
#4,934,458
of 30,048,691 outputs
Outputs from Canadian Journal of Kidney Health and Disease
#113
of 741 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#72,442
of 347,414 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Canadian Journal of Kidney Health and Disease
#4
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 30,048,691 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 741 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 347,414 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.