» Articles » PMID: 26466993

Prediction of Delayed Graft Function After Kidney Transplantation: Comparison Between Logistic Regression and Machine Learning Methods

Overview
Publisher Biomed Central
Date 2015 Oct 16
PMID 26466993
Citations 32
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Predictive models for delayed graft function (DGF) after kidney transplantation are usually developed using logistic regression. We want to evaluate the value of machine learning methods in the prediction of DGF.

Methods: 497 kidney transplantations from deceased donors at the Ghent University Hospital between 2005 and 2011 are included. A feature elimination procedure is applied to determine the optimal number of features, resulting in 20 selected parameters (24 parameters after conversion to indicator parameters) out of 55 retrospectively collected parameters. Subsequently, 9 distinct types of predictive models are fitted using the reduced data set: logistic regression (LR), linear discriminant analysis (LDA), quadratic discriminant analysis (QDA), support vector machines (SVMs; using linear, radial basis function and polynomial kernels), decision tree (DT), random forest (RF), and stochastic gradient boosting (SGB). Performance of the models is assessed by computing sensitivity, positive predictive values and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) after 10-fold stratified cross-validation. AUROCs of the models are pairwise compared using Wilcoxon signed-rank test.

Results: The observed incidence of DGF is 12.5 %. DT is not able to discriminate between recipients with and without DGF (AUROC of 52.5 %) and is inferior to the other methods. SGB, RF and polynomial SVM are mainly able to identify recipients without DGF (AUROC of 77.2, 73.9 and 79.8 %, respectively) and only outperform DT. LDA, QDA, radial SVM and LR also have the ability to identify recipients with DGF, resulting in higher discriminative capacity (AUROC of 82.2, 79.6, 83.3 and 81.7 %, respectively), which outperforms DT and RF. Linear SVM has the highest discriminative capacity (AUROC of 84.3 %), outperforming each method, except for radial SVM, polynomial SVM and LDA. However, it is the only method superior to LR.

Conclusions: The discriminative capacities of LDA, linear SVM, radial SVM and LR are the only ones above 80 %. None of the pairwise AUROC comparisons between these models is statistically significant, except linear SVM outperforming LR. Additionally, the sensitivity of linear SVM to identify recipients with DGF is amongst the three highest of all models. Due to both reasons, the authors believe that linear SVM is most appropriate to predict DGF.

Citing Articles

A novel method to predict white blood cells after kidney transplantation based on machine learning.

He S, Li X, Zhao Z, Li B, Tan X, Guo H Digit Health. 2024; 10:20552076241288107.

PMID: 39484657 PMC: 11526406. DOI: 10.1177/20552076241288107.


Present and Future Applications of Artificial Intelligence in Kidney Transplantation.

Kotsifa E, Mavroeidis V J Clin Med. 2024; 13(19).

PMID: 39407999 PMC: 11478249. DOI: 10.3390/jcm13195939.


Artificial Intelligence Reporting Guidelines' Adherence in Nephrology for Improved Research and Clinical Outcomes.

Salybekov A, Wolfien M, Hahn W, Hidaka S, Kobayashi S Biomedicines. 2024; 12(3).

PMID: 38540219 PMC: 10968354. DOI: 10.3390/biomedicines12030606.


Machine learning approaches for early detection of non-alcoholic steatohepatitis based on clinical and blood parameters.

Naderi Yaghouti A, Zamanian H, Shalbaf A Sci Rep. 2024; 14(1):2442.

PMID: 38287043 PMC: 10824722. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-024-51741-0.


Predicting long-term outcomes of kidney transplantation in the era of artificial intelligence.

Badrouchi S, Bacha M, Ahmed A, Ben Abdallah T, Abderrahim E Sci Rep. 2023; 13(1):21273.

PMID: 38042904 PMC: 10693633. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-48645-w.


References
1.
Powell J, Tsapepas D, Martin S, Hardy M, Ratner L . Managing renal transplant ischemia reperfusion injury: novel therapies in the pipeline. Clin Transplant. 2013; 27(4):484-91. DOI: 10.1111/ctr.12121. View

2.
Matas A, Gillingham K, Elick B, Dunn D, Gruessner R, Payne W . Risk factors for prolonged hospitalization after kidney transplants. Clin Transplant. 1997; 11(4):259-64. View

3.
Chapal M, Le Borgne F, Legendre C, Kreis H, Mourad G, Garrigue V . A useful scoring system for the prediction and management of delayed graft function following kidney transplantation from cadaveric donors. Kidney Int. 2014; 86(6):1130-9. DOI: 10.1038/ki.2014.188. View

4.
Brown T, Elster E, Stevens K, Graybill J, Gillern S, Phinney S . Bayesian modeling of pretransplant variables accurately predicts kidney graft survival. Am J Nephrol. 2012; 36(6):561-9. DOI: 10.1159/000345552. View

5.
Yarlagadda S, Coca S, Garg A, Doshi M, Poggio E, Marcus R . Marked variation in the definition and diagnosis of delayed graft function: a systematic review. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2008; 23(9):2995-3003. PMC: 2727302. DOI: 10.1093/ndt/gfn158. View