Background Infections are a major cause of mortality in hemodialysis patients, but early risk stratification remains difficult. This study developed and validated an interpretable ML model using routine baseline laboratory data to predict short-term infection risk. Methods A retrospective cohort of 622 hemodialysis patients with uremia was analyzed. The primary outcome was a confirmed infectious event (infection, sepsis, or pneumonia) occurring within a 2-month follow-up. To rigorously prevent data leakage, the cohort was strictly partitioned into training (70%) and test (30%) sets prior to missing value imputation and any downstream preprocessing. A LightGBM-based forward feature selection was executed exclusively within the training set. Nine ML algorithms were evaluated, and model robustness was validated via nested cross-validation, repeated cross-validation, and bootstrap optimism correction. Interpretability was achieved using SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP). Results Subsequent infections occurred in 157 patients (25.2%). A parsimonious six-biomarker signature (CysC, HCT, TP, MONO_pct, MYO, ADA) was identified. The K-Nearest Neighbors (KNN) and LightGBM models demonstrated robust discriminative performance (Test AUROC: 0.727 and 0.719, respectively). Nested cross-validation confirmed generalization stability (e.g., ANN mean AUC: 0.722). SHAP analysis revealed elevated Cystatin C and lowered Hematocrit as the strongest contributors to the model’s risk ranking. Although the model showed high ranking ability, the default 0.5 threshold yielded low sensitivity; a prespecified F2‑optimized threshold of 0.30 improved sensitivity to 0.723 in the test set. Conclusion This interpretable machine learning‑based predictive model, using routinely available laboratory data, may serve as a potential adjunctive decision‑support tool for stratifying short‑term infection risk. External validation is required before clinical implementation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Liang et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: