Citations

Background Intermittent fasting (IF) represents a dietary strategy with known metabolic benefits, however its safety and applicability in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) remains poorly understood. AI chatbots’ reliability for clinical and dietary guidance in clinically complex areas remains underexplored. No study has examined AI performance on IF in patients with CKD. This study evaluated the accuracy, consistency, readability, and quality of responses generated by ChatGPT-5 and Claude 4.5 Sonnet regarding IF in CKD. Methods Twenty-five patient-centered questions spanning seven clinical domains were developed by two board-certified nephrologists and submitted independently to ChatGPT-5 and Claude 4.5 Sonnet twice per model. Prompts were submitted under standard and unmodified user conditions without customized system instructions to represent a zero-shot evaluation that is illustrative of typical patient use. Responses were evaluated for accuracy, consistency (comparatively between responses), and appropriateness by the evaluators. Response readability and quality were assessed using the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL) formula and the DISCERN instrument respectively. Results Both ChatGPT-5 and Claude 4.5 Sonnet demonstrated identical accuracy scores during the first question prompts with notable improvement upon re-prompting after 24-hours. Both models demonstrated an identical internal consistency at 90%. ChatGPT-5 produced responses at the middle school level, better aligned with the US adult health literacy benchmark, while Claude 4.5 Sonnet generated responses at the high school level. DISCERN scoring was comparable between chatbots indicative of good response quality. Both chatbots had similar performance regarding individual subdomains. Conclusions Both chatbots illustrated clinically accurate and cautious responses to questions regarding IF in CKD. ChatGPT-5 responses were better suited to the average health literacy of the general United States adult population. Despite our findings, we do not recommend either chatbot be used as the primary source for clinical counseling regarding IF in CKD. It is important for clinicians to help to guide patients toward evidence-based clinical information.

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.

Longer pre-transplant dialysis duration is known to be associated with worse post-transplant outcomes. Our study aimed to cluster kidney transplant recipients with prolonged dialysis duration before transplant using an unsupervised machine learning approach to better assess heterogeneity within this cohort. We performed consensus cluster analysis based on recipient-, donor-, and transplant-related characteristics in 5092 kidney transplant recipients who had been on dialysis ≥ 10 years prior to transplant in the OPTN/UNOS database from 2010 to 2019. We characterized each assigned cluster and compared the posttransplant outcomes. Overall, the majority of patients with ≥10 years of dialysis duration were black (52%) or Hispanic (25%), with only a small number (17.6%) being moderately sensitized. Within this cohort, three clinically distinct clusters were identified. Cluster 1 patients were younger, non-diabetic and non-sensitized, had a lower body mass index (BMI) and received a kidney transplant from younger donors. Cluster 2 recipients were older, unsensitized and had a higher BMI; they received kidney transplant from older donors. Cluster 3 recipients were more likely to be female with a higher PRA. Compared to cluster 1, cluster 2 had lower 5-year death-censored graft (HR 1.40; 95% CI 1.16–1.71) and patient survival (HR 2.98; 95% CI 2.43–3.68). Clusters 1 and 3 had comparable death-censored graft and patient survival. Unsupervised machine learning was used to characterize kidney transplant recipients with prolonged pre-transplant dialysis into three clinically distinct clusters with variable but good post-transplant outcomes. Despite a dialysis duration ≥ 10 years, excellent outcomes were observed in most recipients, including those with moderate sensitization. A disproportionate number of minority recipients were observed within this cohort, suggesting multifactorial delays in accessing kidney transplantation.

Background: Contrast-induced encephalopathy (CIE) is an infrequent but serious neurological condition that occurs shortly after the administration of contrast during endovascular and angiography procedures. Patients suffering from chronic kidney disease (CKD) or end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) are considered to be at a higher risk of contrast medium neurotoxicity, due to the delayed elimination of the contrast medium. However, the occurrence and characteristics of CIE in CKD/ESKD patients have not been extensively investigated. Methods: We conducted a comprehensive literature search, utilizing databases such as MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, up to September 2022. The purpose was to identify documented cases of CIE among patients with CKD or ESKD. Employing a random-effects model, we calculated the pooled incidence and odds ratio (OR) of CIE in CKD/ESKD patients. Results: Our search yielded a total of eleven articles, comprising nine case reports and two observational studies. Among these studies, 2 CKD patients and 12 ESKD patients with CIE were identified. The majority of the CKD/ESKD patients with CIE (93%) had undergone intra-arterial contrast media and/or endovascular procedures to diagnose acute cerebrovascular disease, coronary artery disease, and peripheral artery disease. The male-to-female ratio was 64%, and the median age was 63 years (with an interquartile range of 55 to 68 years). In the two observational studies, the incidence of CIE was found to be 6.8% in CKD patients and 37.5% in ESKD patients, resulting in a pooled incidence of 16.4% (95% CI, 2.4%–60.7%) among the CKD/ESKD patients. Notably, CKD and ESKD were significantly associated with an increased risk of CIE, with ORs of 5.77 (95% CI, 1.37–24.3) and 223.5 (95% CI, 30.44–1641.01), respectively. The overall pooled OR for CIE in CKD/ESKD patients was 32.9 (95% CI, 0.89–1226.44). Although dialysis prior to contrast exposure did not prevent CIE, approximately 92% of CIE cases experienced recovery after undergoing dialysis following contrast exposure. However, the effectiveness of dialysis on CIE recovery remained uncertain, as there was no control group for comparison. Conclusions: In summary, our study indicates an association between CIE and CKD/ESKD. While patients with CIE showed signs of recovery after dialysis, further investigations are necessary, especially considering the lack of a control group, which made the effects of dialysis on CIE recovery uncertain.

Background: Better understanding of the different phenotypes/subgroups of non-U.S. citizen kidney transplant recipients may help the transplant community to identify strategies that improve outcomes among non-U.S. citizen kidney transplant recipients. This study aimed to cluster non-U.S. citizen kidney transplant recipients using an unsupervised machine learning approach; Methods: We conducted a consensus cluster analysis based on recipient-, donor-, and transplant- related characteristics in non-U.S. citizen kidney transplant recipients in the United States from 2010 to 2019 in the OPTN/UNOS database using recipient, donor, and transplant-related characteristics. Each cluster’s key characteristics were identified using the standardized mean difference. Post-transplant outcomes were compared among the clusters; Results: Consensus cluster analysis was performed in 11,300 non-U.S. citizen kidney transplant recipients and identified two distinct clusters best representing clinical characteristics. Cluster 1 patients were notable for young age, preemptive kidney transplant or dialysis duration of less than 1 year, working income, private insurance, non-hypertensive donors, and Hispanic living donors with a low number of HLA mismatch. In contrast, cluster 2 patients were characterized by non-ECD deceased donors with KDPI <85%. Consequently, cluster 1 patients had reduced cold ischemia time, lower proportion of machine-perfused kidneys, and lower incidence of delayed graft function after kidney transplant. Cluster 2 had higher 5-year death-censored graft failure (5.2% vs. 9.8%; p < 0.001), patient death (3.4% vs. 11.4%; p < 0.001), but similar one-year acute rejection (4.7% vs. 4.9%; p = 0.63), compared to cluster 1; Conclusions: Machine learning clustering approach successfully identified two clusters among non-U.S. citizen kidney transplant recipients with distinct phenotypes that were associated with different outcomes, including allograft loss and patient survival. These findings underscore the need for individualized care for non-U.S. citizen kidney transplant recipients.

AbstractBackgroundOur study aimed to characterize kidney retransplant recipients using an unsupervised machine‐learning approach.MethodsWe performed consensus cluster analysis based on the recipient‐, donor‐, and transplant‐related characteristics in 17 443 kidney retransplant recipients in the OPTN/UNOS database from 2010 to 2019. We identified each cluster's key characteristics using the standardized mean difference of >.3. We compared the posttransplant outcomes, including death‐censored graft failure and patient death among the assigned clustersResultsConsensus cluster analysis identified three distinct clusters of kidney retransplant recipients. Cluster 1 recipients were predominantly white and were less sensitized. They were most likely to receive a living donor kidney transplant and more likely to be preemptive (30%) or need ≤1 year of dialysis (32%). In contrast, cluster 2 recipients were the most sensitized (median PRA 95%). They were more likely to have been on dialysis >1 year, and receive a nationally allocated, low HLA mismatch, standard KDPI deceased donor kidney. Recipients in cluster 3 were more likely to be minorities (37% Black; 15% Hispanic). They were moderately sensitized with a median PRA of 87% and were also most likely to have been on dialysis >1 year. They received locally allocated high HLA mismatch kidneys from standard KDPI deceased donors. Thymoglobulin was the most commonly used induction agent for all three clusters. Cluster 1 had the most favorable patient and graft survival, while cluster 3 had the worst patient and graft survival.ConclusionThe use of an unsupervised machine learning approach characterized kidney retransplant recipients into three clinically distinct clusters with differing posttransplant outcomes. Recipients with moderate allosensitization, such as those represented in cluster 3, are perhaps more disadvantaged in the kidney retransplantation process. Potential opportunities for improvement specific to these re‐transplant recipients include working to improve opportunities to improve access to living donor kidney transplantation, living donor paired exchange and identifying strategies for better HLA matching.