Klaudia Rydzyńska

Klaudia Rydzyńska

*This is an algorithmically generated author record based on publicly available information.

Current Organizations / Institutes

The organizations/institutes from the scholar's latest article


Klaudia Rydzyńska has a total of 12 co-authors. Here are the top co-authors by number of shared publications:


Latest Publications

  • Open Access

    The Artificial Neural Network as a Diagnostic Tool of the Risk of Clostridioides difficile Infection among Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease

    by Jakub Stojanowski, Andrzej Konieczny, Łukasz Lis, Weronika Frosztęga, Patrycja Brzozowska, Anna Ciszewska, Klaudia Rydzyńska, Michał Sroka, Kornelia Krakowska, Tomasz Gołębiowski, et al.

    The majority of recently published studies indicate a greater incidence and mortality due to Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). Hospitalization, older age, the use of antibiotics, immunosuppression, proton pump inhibitors (PPI), and chronic diseases such as CKD are responsible for the increased prevalence of infections. The aim of the study is to identify clinical indicators allowing, in combination with artificial intelligence (AI) techniques, the most accurate assessment of the patients being at elevated risk of CDI.


  • Open Access

    Artificial Intelligence—A Tool for Risk Assessment of Delayed-Graft Function in Kidney Transplant

    by Andrzej Konieczny, Jakub Stojanowski, Klaudia Rydzyńska, Mariusz Kusztal, Magdalena Krajewska

    Delayed-graft function (DGF) might be responsible for shorter graft survival. Therefore, a clinical tool predicting its occurrence is vital for the risk assessment of transplant outcomes. In a single-center study, we conducted data mining and machine learning experiments, resulting in DGF predictive models based on random forest classifiers (RF) and an artificial neural network called multi-layer perceptron (MLP). All designed models had four common input parameters, determining the best accuracy and discriminant ability: donor’s eGFR, recipient’s BMI, donor’s BMI, and recipient–donor weight difference. RF and MLP designs, using these parameters, achieved an accuracy of 84.38% and an area under curve (AUC) 0.84. The model additionally implementing a donor’s age, gender, and Kidney Donor Profile Index (KDPI) accomplished an accuracy of 93.75% and an AUC of 0.91. The other configuration with the estimated post-transplant survival (EPTS) and the kidney donor risk profile (KDRI) achieved an accuracy of 93.75% and an AUC of 0.92. Using machine learning, we were able to assess the risk of DGF in recipients after kidney transplant from a deceased donor. Our solution is scalable and can be improved during subsequent transplants. Based on the new data, the models can achieve better outcomes.