Citations

ABSTRACTBackgroundDespite many people awaiting kidney transplant, kidney allografts from acute kidney injury (AKI) donors continue to be underutilized. We aimed to cluster kidney transplant recipients of AKI kidney allografts using an unsupervised machine learning (ML) approach.MethodsUsing Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network–United Network for Organ Sharing (OPTN/UNOS) data, a consensus clustering cohort analysis was performed in 12 356 deceased donor kidney transplant recipients between 2015 and 2019 in whom donors had a terminal serum creatinine ≥1.5 mg/dL. Significant cluster characteristics were determined, and outcomes were compared.ResultsThe median donor terminal creatinine was 2.2 (interquartile range [IQR] 1.7–3.3) mg/dL. Cluster analysis was performed on 12 356 AKI kidney recipients, and three clinically distinct clusters were identified. Young, sensitized kidney re‐transplant patients characterized Cluster 1. Cluster 2 was characterized by first‐time kidney transplant patients with hypertensive and diabetic kidney diseases. Older diabetic recipients characterized Cluster 3. Clusters 1 and 2 donors were young and met standard kidney donor profile index (KDPI) criteria; Cluster 3 donors were older, more likely to have hypertension or diabetes, and meet high KDPI criteria. Cluster 1 had a higher risk of acute rejection, 3‐year patient death, and graft failure. Cluster 3 had a higher risk of death‐censored graft failure, patient death, and graft failure at 1 and 3 years. Cluster 2 had the best patient‐, graft‐, and death‐censored graft survival at 1 and 3 years. Compared to non‐AKI kidney recipients, the AKI clusters showed a higher incidence of delayed graft function (DGF, AKI: 43.2%, 41.7%, 45.3% vs. non‐AKI: 25.5%); however, there were comparable long‐term outcomes specific to death‐censored graft survival (AKI: 93.6%, 93.4%, 90.4% vs. non‐AKI: 92.3%), patient survival (AKI: 89.1%, 93.2%, 84.2% vs. non‐AKI: 91.2%), and overall graft survival (AKI: 84.7%, 88.2%, 79.0% vs. non‐AKI: 86.0%).ConclusionsIn this unsupervised ML approach study, AKI recipient clusters demonstrated differing, but good clinical outcomes, suggesting opportunities for transplant centers to incrementally increase kidney utilization from AKI donors.

Purpose of review This review explores the transformative advancement, potential application, and impact of artificial intelligence (AI), particularly machine learning (ML) and large language models (LLMs), on critical care nephrology. Recent findings AI algorithms have demonstrated the ability to enhance early detection, improve risk prediction, personalize treatment strategies, and support clinical decision-making processes in acute kidney injury (AKI) management. ML models can predict AKI up to 24–48 h before changes in serum creatinine levels, and AI has the potential to identify AKI sub-phenotypes with distinct clinical characteristics and outcomes for targeted interventions. LLMs and generative AI offer opportunities for automated clinical note generation and provide valuable patient education materials, empowering patients to understand their condition and treatment options better. To fully capitalize on its potential in critical care nephrology, it is essential to confront the limitations and challenges of AI implementation, including issues of data quality, ethical considerations, and the necessity for rigorous validation. Summary The integration of AI in critical care nephrology has the potential to revolutionize the management of AKI and continuous renal replacement therapy. While AI holds immense promise for improving patient outcomes, its successful implementation requires ongoing training, education, and collaboration among nephrologists, intensivists, and AI experts.

Background Professional opinion polling has become a popular means of seeking advice for complex nephrology questions in the #AskRenal community on X. ChatGPT is a large language model with remarkable problem-solving capabilities, but its ability to provide solutions for real-world clinical scenarios remains unproven. This study seeks to evaluate how closely ChatGPT's responses align with current prevailing medical opinions in nephrology. Methods Nephrology polls from X were submitted to ChatGPT-4, which generated answers without prior knowledge of the poll outcomes. Its responses were compared to the poll results (inter-rater) and a second set of responses given after a one-week interval (intra-rater) using Cohen's kappa statistic (κ). Subgroup analysis was performed based on question subject matter. Results Our analysis comprised two rounds of testing ChatGPT on 271 nephrology-related questions. In the first round, ChatGPT's responses agreed with poll results for 163 of the 271 questions (60.2%; κ = 0.42, 95% CI: 0.38–0.46). In the second round, conducted to assess reproducibility, agreement improved slightly to 171 out of 271 questions (63.1%; κ = 0.46, 95% CI: 0.42–0.50). Comparison of ChatGPT's responses between the two rounds demonstrated high internal consistency, with agreement in 245 out of 271 responses (90.4%; κ = 0.86, 95% CI: 0.82–0.90). Subgroup analysis revealed stronger performance in the combined areas of homeostasis, nephrolithiasis, and pharmacology (κ = 0.53, 95% CI: 0.47–0.59 in both rounds), compared to other nephrology subfields. Conclusion ChatGPT-4 demonstrates modest capability in replicating prevailing professional opinion in nephrology polls overall, with varying performance levels between question topics and excellent internal consistency. This study provides insights into the potential and limitations of using ChatGPT in medical decision making.

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients can benefit from personalized education on lifestyle and nutrition management strategies to enhance healthcare outcomes. The potential use of chatbots, introduced in 2022, as a tool for educating CKD patients has been explored. A set of 15 questions on lifestyle modification and nutrition, derived from a thorough review of three specific KDIGO guidelines, were developed and posed in various formats, including original, paraphrased with different adverbs, incomplete sentences, and misspellings. Four versions of AI were used to answer these questions: ChatGPT 3.5 (March and September 2023 versions), ChatGPT 4, and Bard AI. Additionally, 20 questions on lifestyle modification and nutrition were derived from the NKF KDOQI guidelines for nutrition in CKD (2020 Update) and answered by four versions of chatbots. Nephrologists reviewed all answers for accuracy. ChatGPT 3.5 produced largely accurate responses across the different question complexities, with occasional misleading statements from the March version. The September 2023 version frequently cited its last update as September 2021 and did not provide specific references, while the November 2023 version did not provide any misleading information. ChatGPT 4 presented answers similar to 3.5 but with improved reference citations, though not always directly relevant. Bard AI, while largely accurate with pictorial representation at times, occasionally produced misleading statements and had inconsistent reference quality, although an improvement was noted over time. Bing AI from November 2023 had short answers without detailed elaboration and sometimes just answered “YES”. Chatbots demonstrate potential as personalized educational tools for CKD that utilize layman’s terms, deliver timely and rapid responses in multiple languages, and offer a conversational pattern advantageous for patient engagement. Despite improvements observed from March to November 2023, some answers remained potentially misleading. ChatGPT 4 offers some advantages over 3.5, although the differences are limited. Collaboration between healthcare professionals and AI developers is essential to improve healthcare delivery and ensure the safe incorporation of chatbots into patient care.