Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32140301›Full record

ArticlePeerJ2020

A comparative study of machine learning algorithms for predicting acute kidney injury after liver cancer resection.

Lei Lei, Ying Wang, Qiong Xue, Jianhua Tong, Cheng-Mao Zhou, Jian-Jun Yang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PeerJ, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. A deep learning approach for acute liver failure prediction with combined fully connected and convolutional neural networks.Technology and health care : official journal of the European Society for Engineering and Medicine · 2024
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Observational
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Role of artificial intelligence in diagnosing pericoronal radiolucency.Journal of oral biology and craniofacial research
    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.

Lei Lei *Department of Anesthesiology, Pain and Perioperative Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, China.
Ying Wang *Department of Anesthesiology, Pain and Perioperative Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, China.
Qiong XueDepartment of Anesthesiology, Pain and Perioperative Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, China.
Jianhua TongDepartment of Anesthesiology, Pain and Perioperative Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, China.
Cheng-Mao ZhouDepartment of Anesthesiology, Pain and Perioperative Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, China.
Jian-Jun YangDepartment of Anesthesiology, Pain and Perioperative Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveMachine learning methods may have better or comparable predictive ability than traditional analysis. We explore machine learning methods to predict the likelihood of acute kidney injury after liver cancer resection.

methodsThis is a secondary analysis cohort study. We reviewed data from patients who had undergone resection of primary hepatocellular carcinoma between January 2008 and October 2015.

resultsThe analysis included 1,173 hepatectomy patients, 77 (6.6%) of whom had AKI and 1,096 (93.4%) who did not. The importance matrix for the Gbdt algorithm model shows that age, cholesterol, tumor size, surgery duration and PLT were the five most important parameters. Figure 1 shows that Age, tumor size and surgery duration had weak positive correlations with AKI. Cholesterol and PLT also had weak negative correlations with AKI. The models constructed by the four machine learning algorithms in the training group were compared. Among the four machine learning algorithms, random forest and gbm had the highest accuracy, 0.989 and 0.970 respectively. The precision of four of the five algorithms was 1, random forest being the exception. Among the test group, gbm had the highest accuracy (0.932). Random forest and gbm had the highest precision, both being 0.333. The AUC values for the four algorithms were: Gbdt (0.772), gbm (0.725), forest (0.662) and DecisionTree (0.628).

conclusionsMachine learning technology can predict acute kidney injury after hepatectomy. Age, cholesterol, tumor size, surgery duration and PLT influence the likelihood and development of postoperative acute kidney injury.

Indexed as

AKIHepatectomyMachine learningPostoperativeSecondary analysis

Identifiers

PMID32140301
PMCPMC7047869

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.