4.7 Article

Predicting outcomes of continuous renal replacement therapy using body composition monitoring: a deep-learning approach

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 13, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-30074-4

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study evaluated the impact of fluid balance monitoring on the prognosis of patients with severe acute kidney injury. The results showed a marginal benefit of fluid balance for the control group after adjusting for confounding factors. The deep-learning model using recurrent neural networks achieved the best performance in prognosis assessment.
Fluid balance is a critical prognostic factor for patients with severe acute kidney injury (AKI) requiring continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT). This study evaluated whether repeated fluid balance monitoring could improve prognosis in this clinical population. This was a multicenter retrospective study that included 784 patients (mean age, 67.8 years; males, 66.4%) with severe AKI requiring CRRT during 2017-2019 who were treated in eight tertiary hospitals in Korea. Sequential changes in total body water were compared between patients who died (event group) and those who survived (control group) using mixed-effects linear regression analyses. The performance of various machine learning methods, including recurrent neural networks, was compared to that of existing prognostic clinical scores. After adjusting for confounding factors, a marginal benefit of fluid balance was identified for the control group compared to that for the event group (p = 0.074). The deep-learning model using a recurrent neural network with an autoencoder and including fluid balance monitoring provided the best differentiation between the groups (area under the curve, 0.793) compared to 0.604 and 0.606 for SOFA and APACHE II scores, respectively. Our prognostic, deep-learning model underlines the importance of fluid balance monitoring for prognosis assessment among patients receiving CRRT.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据