Performance of machine learning models for CKD progression and kidney failure: a systematic review

Clicks: 6
ID: 337974
2026
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Emerging

Ranked #221 of 228 articles by views in clinical kidney journal

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 228 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
Abstract Background Machine learning (ML) is increasingly applied to predicting chronic kidney disease (CKD) progression and kidney failure using routinely collected healthcare data, but the methodological quality and clinical applicability of these models remain uncertain. We hypothesised that ML models would show strong discrimination but be limited by inadequate external validation, inconsistent calibration, and high risk of bias (ROB), restricting clinical implementation. Methods We conducted a systematic review according to PRISMA guidance. Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL were searched from inception for studies evaluating ML models predicting CKD progression, kidney failure, or kidney replacement therapy using routinely collected healthcare data. Studies were synthesised by modelling framework, and ROB was assessed using PROBAST. Results Fifty-two studies were included. ML models demonstrated favourable discrimination, with 37/52 studies reporting AUROC or concordance estimates ≥ 0.80. Where directly comparable, gains over conventional statistical models and established risk scores, including the Kidney Failure Risk Equation (KFRE), were often modest. External validation and calibration assessment were each reported in 19/52 studies, while 41/52 studies were at high ROB. Kidney function, proteinuria-related variables, and age were the most influential predictors. Substantial heterogeneity was observed in cohort design, outcomes, prediction horizons, and validation methodology. Inconsistent handling of proteinuria, missing data, and model-development workflows further limited assessment of transportability and real-world applicability. Conclusions ML models for CKD prognostic prediction demonstrate favourable discrimination across kidney outcomes. However, limited external validation, inconsistent calibration, and methodological heterogeneity restrict clinical implementation. Future progress requires rigorous validation, transparent methodology, and demonstration of real-world clinical utility.
Reference Key
openalex_W7224997898 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Louise Aubinière-Robb, Joshua Tandy, Bhautesh Jani, Jennifer Susan Lees, Jesse Dawson
Are you one of these authors? Claim your profile
Journal clinical kidney journal
Year 2026
DOI
10.1093/ckj/sfag384
URL
https://doi.org/10.1093/ckj/sfag384
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.