Your new experience awaits. Try the new design now and help us make it even better

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Front. Med.

Sec. Nephrology

Volume 12 - 2025 | doi: 10.3389/fmed.2025.1660154

This article is part of the Research TopicManagement of Patients with Dialysis Dependent Chronic Kidney Disease (DD-CKD)View all 6 articles

Risk prediction for cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality in maintenance hemodialysis patients

Provisionally accepted
Mengxia  CaoMengxia CaoJialing  FengJialing FengXiao  LiuXiao LiuXiangqiong  WenXiangqiong WenSantao  OuSantao Ou*
  • The Affiliated Hospital of Southwest Medical University, Luzhou, China

The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.

Objective: This study is designed to develop predictive models for cardiovascular events (CVE) and all-cause mortality in maintenance hemodialysis (MHD) patients using machine learning (ML) algorithms. Furthermore, we aim to compare the performance of these ML-based models with that of traditional Cox regression models. Methods: We conducted a retrospective study that included 275 patients who underwent MHD treatment from January 1, 2020, to January 1, 2022. We collected comprehensive data on their demographic characteristics, comorbidities, medication history, and baseline laboratory values, and followed up with them throughout the study period. To develop predictive models for CVE and all-cause mortality, we employed several ML algorithms, including Logistic Regression (LR), Support Vector Machine (SVM), Random Forest (RF), Decision Tree (DT), Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost), and Naive Bayes Model (NBM). Finally, we compared the predictive accuracy of the ML models with that of Cox regression models by evaluating their respective AUC values. Results: During a median follow-up period of 50.0 months, 119 patients experienced CVE and 75 patients died. The XGBoost model emerged as the most accurate predictor of CVE. The AUC values for predicting CVE at 1, 2, 3, and 4 years were 0.650, 0.702, 0.742, and 0.755 respectively. The accuracy, F1 score, recall, and precision were 0.731, 0.694, 0.706, and 0.683. Key predictors identified included a history of cardiovascular disease, total iron-binding capacity, body mass index, red blood cell count, mean corpuscular hemoglobin, and serum magnesium levels. For predicting all-cause mortality, the RF model demonstrated the highest performance. The AUC values for predicting all-cause mortality at 1, 2, 3, and 4 years were 0.903, 0.931, 0.882, and 0.862 respectively; the accuracy, F1 score, recall, and precision were 0.796, 0.517, 0.400, and 0.732. Significant predictors included dialysis vintage, post-dialysis β2-microglobulin levels, Β-Carboxy-Terminal Peptide of Type I Collagen, total bilirubin, lymphocyte count, lactate dehydrogenase, mean corpuscular hemoglobin concentration, and the use of roxadustat. Across all endpoints, the ML models demonstrated better discrimination than Cox regression models. Conclusions: Overall, ML models provided a more reliable prognostic assessment than Cox regression models for predicting CVE and all-cause mortality in MHD patients over the observation period.

Keywords: hemodialysis, Cardiovascular event, All-cause mortality, machine learning, predictive model

Received: 05 Jul 2025; Accepted: 13 Oct 2025.

Copyright: © 2025 Cao, Feng, Liu, Wen and Ou. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

* Correspondence: Santao Ou, ousantao@163.com

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.