Добавил:
kiopkiopkiop18@yandex.ru t.me/Prokururor I Вовсе не секретарь, но почту проверяю Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз: Предмет: Файл:
Ординатура / Хирургия / Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана / Книга_5224_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана.pdf
Скачиваний:
0
Добавлен:
02.09.2026
Размер:
21 Мб
Скачать
336 T. von Groote et al.
understanding and utilization of AKI biomarkers. Embracing these advancements heralds a shift toward precision medicine and more effective AKI care pathways.

References

1. Biomarkers Denitions Working Group. Biomarkers and surrogate endpoints: preferred de­nitions and conceptual framework. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2001;69:89–95.
1067/mcp.2001.113989.
2. Ostermann M, Zarbock A, Goldstein S, Kashani K, Macedo E, Murugan R, Bell M, Forni L, Guzzi L, Joannidis M, Kane-Gill SL, Legrand M, Mehta R, Murray PT, Pickkers P, Plebani M, Prowle J, Ricci Z, Rimmelé T, Rosner M, Shaw AD, Kellum JA, Ronco C. Recommendations on acute kidney injury biomarkers from the acute Disease quality initiative consensus confer­ence: a consensus statement. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3:e2019209. https://doi.org/10.1001/
jamanetworkopen.2020.19209.
3. Kidney Disease: Improving global outcomes (KDIGO) acute kidney injury work group. KDIGO clinical practice guideline for acute kidney injury. Kidney Int Suppl. 2012;2:1–138.
4. Khwaja A. KDIGO clinical practice guidelines for acute kidney injury. Nephron Clin Pract. 2012;120:c179–84. https://doi.org/10.1159/000339789.
5. Schetz M, Schortgen F. Ten shortcomings of the current denition of AKI. Intensive Care Med. 2017;43:911–3. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-017-4715-2.
6. Molitoris BA, Reilly E. Quantifying glomerular ltration rates in acute kidney injury: a requirement for translational success. Semin Nephrol. 2016;36:31–41. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.semnephrol.2016.01.008.
7. Schetz M, Gunst J, Van den Berghe G. The impact of using estimated GFR versus creatinine clearance on the evaluation of recovery from acute kidney injury in the ICU. Intensive Care Med. 2014;40:1709–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-014-3487-1.
8. Shlipak MG, Inker LA, Coresh J. Serum cystatin C for estimation of GFR. JAMA. 2022;328: 883–4. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2022.12407.
9. Adingwupu OM, Barbosa ER, Palevsky PM, Vassalotti JA, Levey AS, Inker LA. Cystatin C as a GFR estimation marker in acute and chronic illness: a systematic review. Kidney Med. 2023;5:100727. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.xkme.2023.10072.
10. von Groote T, Meersch-Dini M. Biomarkers for the prediction and judgement of sepsis and sepsis complications: a step towards precision medicine? J Clin Med. 2022;11:5782. https://doi.
org/10.3390/jcm11195782.
11. Porschen C, Strauss C, Meersch M, Zarbock A. Personalized acute kidney injury treatment. Curr Opin Crit Care. 2023;29:551. https://doi.org/10.1097/MCC.0000000000001089.
12. Koyner JL, Zarbock A, Basu RK, Ronco C. The impact of biomarkers of acute kidney injury on individual patient care. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2019;35:1295–305. https://doi.org/10.1093/
ndt/gfz188.
13. Kane-Gill SL, Meersch M, Bell M. Biomarker-guided management of acute kidney injury. Curr Opin Crit Care. 2020;26:556–62. https://doi.org/10.1097/MCC.0000000000000777.
14. Hoste E, Bihorac A, Al-Khafaji A, Ortega LM, Ostermann M, Haase M, Zacharowski K, Wunderink R, Heung M, Lissauer M, Self WH, Koyner JL, Honore PM, Prowle JR, Joannidis M, Forni LG, Kampf JP, McPherson P, Kellum JA, Chawla LS. Identication and validation of biomarkers of persistent acute kidney injury: the RUBY study. Intensive Care Med. 2020;46:943–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-019-05919-0. Epub 2020 Feb 6. PMID: 32025755; PMCID: PMC7210248.
15.
Meersch M, von Groote T, Zarbock A. Predicting the development of renal replacement therapy indications by combining the furosemide stress test and chemokine (C-C motif) ligand 14 in a cohort of
Weiss R, Gerss J, Albert F, Gruber J, Kellum JA, Chawla L, Forni LG, Koyner JL,
https://doi.org/10.
28 Biomarkers for Acute Kidney Injury 337
postsurgical patients. Crit Care Med. 2023;51:1033–42. https ://doi.org/10.1097/C CM.
0000000000005849.
16. Katulka RJ, Al Saadon A, RTN, Bagshaw SM, Rewa OG. Determining the optimal time for liberation from renal replacement therapy in critically ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis (DOnE RRT). Crit Care. 2020;24:50. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-020-2751-8. PMID: 32054522; PMCID: PMC7020497.
17. Uchino S, Bellomo R, Morimatsu H, Morgera S, Schetz M, Tan I, Bouman C, Macedo E, Gibney N, Tolwani A, Straaten HO, Ronco C, Kellum JA. Discontinuation of continuous renal replacement therapy: a post hoc analysis of a prospective multicenter observational study*. Crit Care Med. 2009;37:2576. https://doi.org/10.1097/CCM.0b013e3181a38241.
18. Haase M, Devarajan P, Haase-Fielitz A, Bellomo R, Cruz DN, Wagener G, Krawczeski CD, Koyner JL, Murray P, Zappitelli M, Goldstein SL, Makris K, Ronco C, Martensson J, Martling CR, Venge P, Siew E, Ware LB, Ikizler TA, Mertens PR. The outcome of neutrophil gelatinase­associated lipocalin-positive subclinical acute kidney injury: a multicenter pooled analysis of prospective studies. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;57(17):1752–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.
2010.11.051. PMID: 21511111; PMCID: PMC4866647.
19. Chawla LS, Bellomo R, Bihorac A, Goldstein SL, Siew ED, Bagshaw SM, Bittleman D, Cruz D, Endre Z, Fitzgerald RL, Forni L, Kane-Gill SL, Hoste E, Koyner J, Liu KD, Macedo E, Mehta R, Murray P, Nadim M, Ostermann M, Palevsky PM, Pannu N, Rosner M, Wald R, Zarbock A, Ronco C, Kellum JA. Acute disease quality initiative workgroup 16. Acute kidney disease and renal recovery: consensus report of the Acute Disease Quality Initiative (ADQI) 16 Workgroup. Nat Rev Nephrol. 2017;13(4):241 – 57.
2017.2. Epub 2017 Feb 27.
20. Kashani K, Al-Khafaji A, Ardiles T, Artigas A, Bagshaw SM, Bell M, Bihorac A, Birkhahn R, Cely CM, Chawla LS, Davison DL, Feldkamp T, Forni LG, Gong MN, Gunnerson KJ, Haase M, Hackett J, Honore PM, Hoste EA, Joannes-Boyau O, Joannidis M, Kim P, Koyner JL, Laskowitz DT, Lissauer ME, Marx G, McCullough PA, Mullaney S, Ostermann M, Rimmelé T, Shapiro NI, Shaw AD, Shi J, Sprague AM, Vincent JL, Vinsonneau C, Wagner L, Walker MG, Wilkerson RG, Zacharowski K, Kellum JA. Discovery and validation of cell cycle arrest biomarkers in human acute kidney injury. Crit Care. 2013;17(1):R25. https://
doi.org/10.1186/cc12503. PMID: 23388612; PMCID: PMC4057242.
21. Han WK, Bailly V, Abichandani R, Thadhani R, Bonventre JV. Kidney injury Molecule-1 (KIM-1): a novel biomarker for human renal proximal tubule injury. Kidney Int. 2002 Jul;62(1): 237–44. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1755.2002.00433.x.
22. Meersch M, Schmidt C, Hoffmeier A, Van Aken H, Wempe C, Gerss J, Zarbock A. Prevention of cardiac surgery-associated AKI by implementing the KDIGO guidelines in high risk patients identied by biomarkers: the PrevAKI randomized controlled trial. Intensive Care Med. 2017;43(11):1551–61. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-016-4670-3. Epub 2017 Jan 21. Erratum in: Intensive Care Med. 2017 Mar 7; PMID: 28110412; PMCID: PMC5633630.
23. Zarbock A, Küllmar M, Ostermann M, Lucchese G, Baig K, Cennamo A, Rajani R, McCorkell S, Arndt C, Wulf H, Irqsusi M, Monaco F, Di Prima AL, García Alvarez M, Italiano S, Miralles Bagan J, Kunst G, Nair S, L’Acqua C, Hoste E, Vandenberghe W, Honore PM, Kellum JA, Forni LG, Grieshaber P, Massoth C, Weiss R, Gerss J, Wempe C, Meersch M. Prevention of cardiac surgery-associated acute kidney injury by implementing the KDIGO guidelines in high-risk patients identied by biomarkers: the PrevAKI-multicenter randomized controlled trial. Anesth Analg. 2021;133(2):292–302. https://doi.org/10.1213/ANE.
0000000000005458
24.
Göcze I, Banas B, Bein T, Schlitt HJ, Bergler T. Biomarker-guided intervention to prevent acute kidney injury after major surgery: the prospective randomized BigpAK study. Ann Surg. 2018 Jun;267 (6):1013–20. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000002485.
Jauch D, Götz M, Kennedy P, Jung B, Zeman F, Gnewuch C, Graf BM, Gnann W,
Sebastianski M, Featherstone R, Vandermeer B, Silver SA, Gibney
https://doi.org/10.1038/nrneph.
.
338 T. von Groote et al.
25. Vaidya VS, Waikar SS, Ferguson MA, Collings FB, Sunderland K, Gioules C, Bradwin G, Matsouaka R, Betensky RA, Curhan GC, Bonventre JV. Urinary biomarkers for sensitive and specic detection of acute kidney injury in humans. Clin Transl Sci. 2008;1(3):200–8. https://
doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-8062.2008.00053.x. PMID: 19212447; PMCID: PMC2638059.
26. Koyner JL, Vaidya VS, Bennett MR, Ma Q, Worcester E, Akhter SA, Raman J, Jeevanandam V, OConnor MF, Devarajan P, Bonventre JV, Murray PT. Urinary biomarkers in the clinical prognosis and early detection of acute kidney injury. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2010;5(12):2154–65. https://doi.org/10.2215/CJN.00740110. Epub 2010 Aug 26. PMID: 20798258; PMCID: PMC2994075.
27. Koyner JL, Garg AX, Coca SG, Sint K, Thiessen-Philbrook H, Patel UD, Shlipak MG, Parikh CR. TRIBE-AKI Consortium. Biomarkers predict progression of acute kidney injury after cardiac surger y. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2012;23(5):905–14. https://doi.org/10.1681/ASN.
2011090907. Epub 2012 Mar 1. Erratum in: J Am Soc Nephrol. 2012 Jul;23(7):1271. PMID:
22383693; PMCID: PMC3338298.
28. Grifn BR, Gist KM, Faubel S. Current status of novel biomarkers for the diagnosis of acute kidney injury: a historical perspective. J Intensive Care Med. 2020;35(5):415–24. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0885066618824531. Epub 2019 Jan 17. PMID: 30654681; PMCID:
PMC7333543.
29. Zarbock A, Weiss R, Albert F, Rutledge K, Kellum JA, Bellomo R, Grigoryev E, Candela-Toha AM, Demir ZA, Legros V, Rosenberger P, Galán Menéndez P, Garcia Alvarez M, Peng K, Léger M, Khalel W, Orhan-Sungur M, Meersch M, The EPIS-AKI Investigators. Epidemiology of surgery associated acute kidney injury (EPIS-AKI): a prospective international observational multi-center clinical study. Intensive Care Med. 2023;49(12):1441–55.
s00134-023-07169-7. Epub 2023 Jul 28. PMID: 37505258; PMCID: PMC10709241.
30. Poukkanen M, Vaara ST, Pettilä V, Kaukonen KM, Korhonen AM, Hovilehto S, Inkinen O, Laru-Sompa R, Kaminski T, Reinikainen M, Lund V, Karlsson S, FINNAKI study group. Acute kidney injury in patients with severe sepsis in Finnish intensive care units. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2013;57(7):863–72. https://doi.org/10.1111/aas.12133. Epub 2013 May 28
31. Pickkers P, Darmon M, Hoste E, Joannidis M, Legrand M, Ostermann M, Prowle JR, Schneider A, Schetz M. Acute kidney injury in the critically ill: an updated review on pathophysiology and management. Intensive Care Med. 2021;47(8):835–50. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s00134-021-06454-7. Epub 2021 Jul 2. PMID: 34213593; PMCID: PMC8249842.
32. Glassford NJ, Schneider AG, Xu S, Eastwood GM, Young H, Peck L, Venge P, Bellomo R. The nature and discriminatory value of urinary neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin in critically ill patients at risk of acute kidney injury. Intensive Care Med. 2013;39(10):1714–24. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s00134-013-3040-7. Epub 2013 Aug 6
33. von Groote T, Albert F, Meersch M, Koch R, Porschen C, Hartmann O, Bergmann D, Pickkers P, Zarbock A. Proenkephalin a 119-159 predicts early and successful liberation from renal replacement therapy in critically ill patients with acute kidney injury: a post hoc analysis of the ELAIN trial. Crit Care. 2022;26(1):333. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-022-
04217-4. PMID: 36316692; PMCID: PMC9624047.
34. von Groote T, Albert F, Meersch M, Koch R, Gerss J, Arlt B, Sadjadi M, Porschen C, Pickkers P, Zarbock A, RICH investigators. Evaluation of Proenkephalin a 119-159 for liberation from renal replacement therapy: an external, multicenter pilot study in critically ill patients with acute kidney injury. Crit Care. 2023;(1):27, 276. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-
023-04556-w. PMID: 37430375; PMCID: PMC10332055.
35.
Schunk SJ, Wagenpfeil S, Gröne HJ, Schäfers HJ, Fliser D, Speer T, Zewinger S. Association between urinary dickkopf-3, acute kidney injury, and subsequent loss of kidney function in patients undergoing cardiac surgery: an observational cohort study. Lancet. 2019;394(10197):488–96.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(19)30769-X. Epub 2019 Jun 12
Zarbock A, Meersch M, Küllmar M, Kellum JA, Schmit D, Wagner M, Triem S,
https://doi.org/10.1007/
28 Biomarkers for Acute Kidney Injury 339
36. Sánchez-Álamo B, García-Iñigo FJ, Shabaka A, Acedo JM, Cases-Corona C, Domínguez­Torres P, Diaz-Enamorado Y, Landaluce E, Navarro-González JF, Gorriz JL, Martínez­Castelao A, Fernández-Juárez G. Urinary Dickkopf-3: a new biomarker for CKD progression and mortality. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2021;36(12):2199–207. https://doi.org/10.1093/ndt/
gfab198.
37. Roscigno G, Quintavalle C, Biondi-Zoccai G, De Micco F, Frati G, Afnito A, Nuzzo S, Condorelli G, Briguori C. Urinary Dickkopf-3 and contrast-associated kidney damage. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2021;77(21):2667–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2021.03.330.
38. Reddy K, Sinha P, OKane CM, Gordon AC, Calfee CS, McAuley DF. Subphenotypes in critical care: translation into clinical practice. Lancet Respir Med. 2020;8(6):631–43. https://
doi.org/10.1016/S2213-2600(20)30124-7.
39. Bhatraju PK, Zelnick LR, Herting J, Katz R, Mikacenic C, Kosamo S, Morrell ED, Robinson­Cohen C, Calfee CS, Christie JD, Liu KD, Matthay MA, Hahn WO, Dmyterko V, Slivinski NSJ, Russell JA, Walley KR, Christiani DC, Liles WC, Himmelfarb J, Wurfel MM. Identication of acute kidney injury subphenotypes with differing molecular signatures and responses to vasopressin therapy. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2019;199(7):863–72. https://
doi.org/10.1164/rccm.201807-1346OC. PMID: 30334632; PMCID: PMC6444649.
40. Kellum JA, Sileanu FE, Bihorac A, Hoste EA, Chawla LS. Recovery after acute kidney injury. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2017;195(6):784–91. https://doi.org/10.1164/rccm.201604-
0799OC. PMID: 27635668; PMCID: PMC5363967.
Devarajan P.
41.
Review: neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin: a troponin-like biomarker for human acute kidney injury. Nephrology (Carlton). 2010 Jun;15(4):419–28. https://doi.org/10.
1111/j.1440-1797.2010.01317.x.
Chapter 29
Prediction and Machine Learning Models for Early Prediction of AKI
Massimiliano Greco, Ilesa Bose, and Giovanni Angelotti

Introduction

In the realm of critical care medicine, the integration of cutting-edge technologies has revolutionized patient care and clinical workows. Among these technologies, machine learning (ML) stands as a transformative tool, offering unparalleled oppor­tunities for predictive analytics and personalized patient management. This chapter explores the intersection of machine learning and critical care, with a specic focus on its role in predicting acute kidney injury (AKI). AKI poses signicant challenges in critical care, with traditional diagnostic criteria often lacking in capturing subtle renal dysfunction. Recognizing this gap, researchers and clinicians have turned to machine learning algorithms to enhance early detection and intervention. ML empowers algorithms to analyze diverse clinical datasets, identify patterns, and generate predictive models without explicit programming, thus facilitating timely intervention and AKI management. Throughout this chapter, we examine key studies and innovative approaches in machine learning-based AKI prediction.
Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-66541-7_29.
M. Greco ( Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Milan, Italy
IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, Milan, Italy e-mail: massimiliano.greco@hunimed.eu
I. Bose Department e-mail: ilesa.bose@st.hunimed.eu
G. Angelotti IRCCS e-mail: giovanni.angelotti@humanitas.it
© The A. Cotoia et al. (eds.), Nutrition, Metabolism and Kidney Support,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-66541-7_29
✉)
of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Milan, Italy
Humanitas Research Hospital, Milan, Italy
Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2024
341
342 M. Greco et al.
From early models using random forest algorithms to advanced deep learning techniques leveraging extensive datasets, ML in critical care promises precision medicine and personalized patient care. Furthermore, we explore the integration of machine learning models into clinical decision support systems (CDSS), highlight­ing their role in providing clinicians with timely alerts and personalized recommen­dations at the point of care. By seamlessly integrating p empower clinicians to make informed decisions and optimize patient outcomes. As we navigate the complexities of machine learning in critical care, it is crucial to address challenges such as data interoperability, model validation, and ethical considerations. Achieving seamless integration into clinical practice requires collab­orative efforts from researchers, clinicians, and policymakers. This chapter examines both the opportu learning to improve patient care in critical settings.
nities and obstacles in harnessing the full potential of machine
redictive analytics, CDSS

The Machine Learning Arena

In recent years, articial intelligence (AI) has been revolutionizing our lives, with the proliferation of self-driving vehicles, image or video generators, and large language models. It is also gaining a prominent role in medicine and critical care [1]. Machine learning (ML), a subclass of articial intelligence, utilizes algorithms designed to learn and adapt to various types and patterns of data autonomously, without being explicitly programmed. Machine learning models range from the earliest techniques of automatic feature selection in linear and logistic regression to supervised models such as random forests or gradient boosting and to advanced deep learning models [2]. ML models hold signicant potential to enhance the quality of care, increase the cost-effectiveness of interventions, and propel the eld of medicine toward precision medicine [ published research models and their real-world applications in ML, a challenge that has yet to be addressed [4].
3]. However, a substantial translational gap remains between the

The Challenges of Timely Prediction of Acute Kidney Injury

Critical illness is frequently linked with the deterioration of renal function [5]. The kidneys possess a substantial functional reserve, enabling them to withstand the decline in renal function despite exposure to various stressors. Therefore, signicant damage may have already occurred by the time a notable effect on serum creatinine levels or u rinary output is observed [ 6 ]. Consequently, acute kidney injury (AKI) presents a diagnostic and therapeutic challenge, with multiple denitions of acute kidney damage emerging over time. According to the current KDIGO guidelines, the diagnosis of AKI is based on an increase in serum creatinine beyond a specic threshold relative to the patients baseline serum creatinine levels or a decrease in
29 Prediction and Machine Learning Models for Early Prediction of AKI 343
urinary output over time [7]. The assessment of the latter can be challenging in hospitalized patients, owing to diuretic use and signicant variations in patients uid balance. Moreover, serum creatinine, as a functional marker, has its own limitations for indicating acute kidney deterioration, as its elevation reects damage that has already occurred. Sepsis and AKI are intertwined syndromes, frequently co-occurring in critical care settings. Recent reports indicate sepsis as a leading of AKI, with AKI o ften complicating sepsis cases [5]. There exists a signicant opportunity for identifying AKI phenotypes within sepsis, especially considering their evolution over time and potential therapeutic approaches [8]. The underlying tissue damage in AKI is not solely attributable to ischemia and hypoperfusion associated with a shock state but also to direct damage and disruption of metabolic processes at the tubular and glomerular levels. This can happen in the context of normal or even increased renal blood ow [ adaptive response of tubular renal cells to inammatory mediators, characterized by inammation, microvascular dysfunction, and the trig gering of metabolic downregulation and cell death in renal tubules [912]. Early detection is crucial for timely intervention and possibly mitigating the progression of AKI. However, the utility of these markers is constrained by variability across different tests and limitations related to cost and availability [ a promising alternative by leveraging the extensive range of clinical, pharmacolog­ical, and vital data contained within electronic health records (EHRs), enabling rapid assessment of renal function and deterioration.
9]. Sepsis-induced AKI is primarily an
13, 14]. Machine learning models offer
cause

Early Machine Learning Models for AKI Prediction

Machine learning algorithms have the capability to learn from hundreds of thousands of clinical observations, discern patterns over time, and ultimately predict changes in kidney function, including the onset of new kidney injuries or renal recovery. In a seminal study by Flechet M. et al., published in 2017 [ machine learning model utilizing a random forest algorithm, with data derived from the EPaNIC study [16]. The research produced four models, ranging from a baseline model to a model evaluated 24 h after ICU admission. This study direc tly compared the performance of the machine learning model with that of biomarkers, nding that the ML model achieved comparable accuracy at a fraction of the cost. Additionally, the models data were made available on a website, facilitating external use and validation of the algorithm. This represents an immediate, practical application potentially advantageous for resource-constrai ned settings.
Another study analyzing electronic health record (EHR) data from a cohort of 121,158 patients at a tertiary academic medical center [ including demographics, vital signs, diagnostics, and interventions, to predict the onset of AKI Stage 2, utilizing a gradient boosting algorithm. Gradient boost ing is a versatile machine learning technique applicable to a variety of tasks, including
focused on the risk prediction of acute kidney injury (AKI) by
17]. This model incorporated a range of data,
15], the authors introduced a
344 M. Greco et al.
regression and classication. The underlying principle of the algorithm involves an iterative process: it starts by making predictions, identies errors, and renes its approach by focusing on these errors, thereby enhancing its ability to manage complex cases. The algorithms ability to adapt to different optimization functions and objectives offers the exibility needed to address a broad spectrum of scenarios [
18].

New Techniques for AKI Prediction Using Deep Learning ML Models

DeepMind, a leading AI research division of Google, unveiled an AKI predictive model in 2019, utilizing a dataset comprising approximately 6 billion independent entries, including 620,000 features. The dataset was divided into training (80%), validation (5%), calibration (5%), and test (10%) sets. The model demonstrated the capability to predict 55.8% of AKI cases up to 48 h in advance. Notably, its predictive accuracy surged to over 90% for the most severe AKI cases [ future of AKI prediction using machine learning (ML) looks promising, with signicant advancements anticipated. A crucial factor will be the expanding volume of data stored in electronic health records (EHRs), including genetic, metabolic, and laboratory data, and more comprehensive integration of patient medical histories, such as high-resolution data from previous hospital admissions. Another signicant development is the advancement of natural language processing (NLP) and its application in medicine. Large language models (LLMs) have revolutionized infor­mation retrieval and text generation with remarkable accuracy. Some models are now capable of incorporating clinical notes processed by NLP into predictive models. For instance, a study focusing on AKI prediction in critically ill patients utilized clinical notes from the rst 24 h of ICU admission, sourced from the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care III (MIMIC-III) database. This approach achieved an impressive area under the curve (AUC) of 0.779 by generating concept representations of clinical notes through NLP, utilizing ve supervised learning classiers and knowledge-guided deep learning algorithms [ real-time waveform data analysis, including arterial blood pressure, EKG, central venous pressure, and respiratory data, opens new avenues for AKI prediction
21, 22]. Moreover, integrating real-time clinical data with genetic analysis will be
[ crucial in identifying sepsis patterns and sub-phenotypes, aiding in patient trajectory delineation and therapeutic strategy development [23, 24]. Machine learning is beginning to offer signicant advantages over traditional methods in sub­phenotyping for sepsis and AKI, allowing for the identication of new patient subgroups with distinct disease trajectories or responses to treatment within a multidimensional data array, a task beyond human cognitive capabilities [25].
20].
19].
The
The advent of
29 Prediction and Machine Learning Models for Early Prediction of AKI 345

Clinical Decision Support Systems

A critical initial step in the effective implementation of machine learning (ML) models in clinical practice is their integration into clinical decision support systems (CDSS). CDSS are designed to provide timely alerts and suggestions to clinicians, including information on drug-to-drug interactions and advice on poten­tial trajectories of clinical deterioration that may otherwise be overlooked or recog­nized with delay in clinical practice [ smartphone applications, and notably, they can also be directly integrated into the electronic health record (EHR) system. In a recent study published in The Lancet, the authors demonstrated that integrating CDSS into clinical practice led to a reduction in the number of potential adverse drug-drug interactions, resulting in a 12% decrease in the administration of high-risk drug combinations to critically ill patients within an ICU network in the Netherlands [28]. This suggests that CDSS are already capable of positively inuencing and enhancing clinical practice, and their interac­tion with clinicians may lead to favorable outcomes for patients.
26, 27]. CDSS can be accessed through web or

The Translational Research Gap and the Value of Data Sharing: A Plea for Data Sharing

In the domain of prescriptive modeling and clinical decision support systems (CDSS), it is of pivotal importance to bridge the translation gap between the large number of published models and their limited clinical applications. One of the key limiting factors is the lack of external validity. This concept emphasizes the models ability to maintain its performance when applied across different centers, thereby enhancing the quality of care and patient outcomes and improving the healthcare system. Consequently, models that may appear to work brilliantly in the center where they were developed may fail spectacularly elsewhere. A critical factor inuencing the transferability of these models is the consistency of data collected across different centers. Hospitals employ varying strategies and limitations in data collection using electronic health record (EHR) systems. These differences encom­pass the types of data, spatial and temporal resolution, and specic variables collected. Moreover, the nomenclature and clinical interpretation of the collected data may vary widely across different centers. This discrepancy is reected in the differences in data structures employed by various EHR systems, further hindering the shareability of models and CDSS. To overcome these limitations, standardization of EHR data structures and the establishment of a common data dictionary across countries and industries are necessary. This standardization could facilitate data sharing and the diffusion of developed models in different healthcare settings, ultimately improving patient care and outcomes.
Another crucial aspect to consider is the evolution of legal regulationsData sharing, governed by the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in Europe
346 M. Greco et al.
[29]. These regulations vary widely in other regions such as North America and Asia and even across countries within the same region. According to GDPR, only anonymized data can be freely exchanged. However, the practical implementation of data anonymization presents a complex challenge akin to balancing an egg on its end. True data anonymity is achievable only when all identifying information, including dates, places, personal identiers, images, specic comorbiditi age, etc., are removed. Anonymization leads to a substantial loss of information compared to the original data and presents researchers with an ethical tradeoff: on one hand, there is a need to protect patient privacy regarding sensitive health data, while on the other hand, the ability to use the model to enhance patient care depends on the depth and details of the data. The scientic community must nd a legal and ethical compromise between these aspects to fac clinical practice.
ilitate the diffusion of ML models in
es, precise

Limitations of Machine Learning Models

There are several different types of machine learning (ML) model s; however, most share some common drawbacks. One problem, as mentioned earlier, is the lack of external validity. ML models often exhibit moderate or low performance when applied to different populations compared to their performance in the development and testing cohort. This is attributed to the fact that their performance is dependent on the quality of the data they are based upon, leading to the simple aphorism that an ML model can only be as good as the underlying data on which it is built.
Moreover, deep learning models may exhibit good performance but are limited in their interpretability. For example, in a study on retinal analysis, an ML model was able to differentiate between male and female patients just from retinal photography, a task which is impossible to perform by humans [ models may achieve high performance but remain black-boxed,encountering barriers in their application in clinical practice, as no regulatory agency is willing to approve a model that is fundamental ly a black box.
Another signicant concern in the development of machine learning is the potential amplication of biases and nonevidence-based practices inherent in the original data [31]. Models trained on clinical data containing biases related to traditional nonevidence-based practices may propagate bias, whereby preexisting biases are learned and perpetuated by the model. This implies that gold standard evidence from randomized controlled trials will continue to play a pivotal role in addressing fundamental clinical research questions soon.
Data scientists and clinicians should invest efforts in preventing biases from affecting model predictions to ensure that clinical decision support systems (CDSS) can function equally and fairly across minorities and less privileged sub-cohorts, ultimately resulting in better care for patients.
30]. Accordingly, deep learning