Papers › Development and Validation of a Dynamic Kidney Failure Prediction Model based on Deep...
Development and Validation of a Dynamic Kidney Failure Prediction Model based on Deep Learning: A Real-World Study with External Validation
Jingying Ma, Jinwei Wang, Lanlan Lu, Yexiang Sun, Mengling Feng, Peng Shen, Zhiqin Jiang, Shenda Hong, Luxia Zhang
Background: Chronic kidney disease (CKD), a progressive disease with high morbidity and mortality, has become a significant global public health problem. At present, most of the models used for predicting the progression of CKD are static models. We aim to develop a dynamic kidney failure prediction model based on deep learning (KFDeep) for CKD patients, utilizing all available data on common clinical indicators from real-world Electronic Health Records (EHRs) to provide real-time predictions. Findings: A retrospective cohort of 4,587 patients from EHRs of Yinzhou, China, is used as the development dataset (2,752 patients for training, 917 patients for validation) and internal validation dataset (917 patients), while a prospective cohort of 934 patients from the Peking University First Hospital CKD cohort (PKUFH cohort) is used as the external validation dataset. The AUROC of the KFDeep model reaches 0.946 (95% CI: 0.922-0.970) on the internal validation dataset and 0.805 (95% CI: 0.763-0.847) on the external validation dataset, both surpassing existing models. The KFDeep model demonstrates stable performance in simulated dynamic scenarios, with the AUROC progressively increasing over time. Both the calibration curve and decision curve analyses confirm that the model is unbiased and safe for practical use, while the SHAP analysis and hidden layer clustering results align with established medical knowledge. Interpretation: The KFDeep model built from real-world EHRs enhances the prediction accuracy of kidney failure without increasing clinical examination costs and can be easily integrated into existing hospital systems, providing physicians with a continuously updated decision-support tool due to its dynamic design.
In Syntology View this paper on Syntology: its repositories, every harvested function with whether it ran, its licence and the call to fetch it.
Open this paper in Syntology's Atlas, the map of the papers in Syntology's graph and their citations.
For agents, Syntology's MCP tool lists every function and class Syntology harvested from this paper and whether it ran (how to connect): get_harvested_code_for_paper(arxiv_id="2501.16388")
Code
Syntology Ran 2 of 3 code samples harvested from 1 repository linked to this paper; 1 has no recorded run. Of those that ran: 1 ran · our draft was wrong; 1 ran · fixture could not drive it.
By repository: official repository: 3 samples from 1 repository, 2 ran. The run record, sample by sample. “Ran” means executed on a synthesized input, not that the code is correct or reproduces the paper.
Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
3 samples harvested; 2 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 1 has no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-25; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.
Licence: 3 of the 3 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.
Harvested from pkudigitalhealth/kfdeep. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.
Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.
Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.
9c2f4ea42126d82a · report
200c30746bc575df · report
cde5585c7a331e1c · report
Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28
No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.
Methods
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections