Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26466993›Full record

ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2015

Prediction of delayed graft function after kidney transplantation: comparison between logistic regression and machine learning methods.

Alexander Decruyenaere, Philippe Decruyenaere, Patrick Peeters, Frank Vermassen, Tom Dhaene, Ivo Couckuyt

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

39 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 73 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Prediction of Prednisolone Dose Correction Using Machine Learning.Journal of healthcare informatics research · 2023
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Classifying Infection Risk Following Pediatric Cardiac Surgery.AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2022
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Alexander DecruyenaereDepartment of Nephrology, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium. Alexander.Decruyenaere@UGent.be.
Philippe DecruyenaereDepartment of Nephrology, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium.
Patrick PeetersDepartment of Nephrology, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium.
Frank VermassenDepartment of Thoracic and Vascular Surgery, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium.
Tom DhaeneDepartment of Information Technology (INTEC), Ghent University - iMinds, Ghent, Belgium.
Ivo CouckuytDepartment of Information Technology (INTEC), Ghent University - iMinds, Ghent, Belgium.
Ghent University Hospital · BEGhent University · BEiMinds · BE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPredictive 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.

methods497 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.

resultsThe 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.

conclusionsThe 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.

Indexed as

Kidney TransplantationLogistic ModelsMachine LearningAdultAgedDelayed Graft FunctionFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPrognosis

Identifiers

PMID26466993
PMCPMC4607098
OpenAlexW2113820196

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.