Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33198650›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2020

Survival prediction models since liver transplantation - comparisons between Cox models and machine learning techniques.

Georgios Kantidakis, Hein Putter, Carlo Lancia, Jacob de Boer, Andries E Braat, Marta Fiocco

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
41citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

41 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. XGBoost Outperforms Traditional Transplant Regulatory Models Based on Regression.Annals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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.

Georgios KantidakisMathematical Institute (MI) Leiden University, Niels Bohrweg 1, Leiden, 2333 CA, the Netherlands. G.Kantidakis@lumc.nl.
Hein PutterDepartment of Biomedical Data Sciences, Section Medical Statistics, Leiden University Medical Center (LUMC), Albinusdreef 2, Leiden, 2333 ZA, The Netherlands.
Carlo LanciaMathematical Institute (MI) Leiden University, Niels Bohrweg 1, Leiden, 2333 CA, the Netherlands.
Jacob de BoerDepartment of Surgery, Leiden University Medical Center (LUMC), Albinusdreef 2, Leiden, 2333 ZA, the Netherlands.
Andries E BraatDepartment of Surgery, Leiden University Medical Center (LUMC), Albinusdreef 2, Leiden, 2333 ZA, the Netherlands.
Marta FioccoMathematical Institute (MI) Leiden University, Niels Bohrweg 1, Leiden, 2333 CA, the Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPredicting survival of recipients after liver transplantation is regarded as one of the most important challenges in contemporary medicine. Hence, improving on current prediction models is of great interest.Nowadays, there is a strong discussion in the medical field about machine learning (ML) and whether it has greater potential than traditional regression models when dealing with complex data. Criticism to ML is related to unsuitable performance measures and lack of interpretability which is important for clinicians.

methodsIn this paper, ML techniques such as random forests and neural networks are applied to large data of 62294 patients from the United States with 97 predictors selected on clinical/statistical grounds, over more than 600, to predict survival from transplantation. Of particular interest is also the identification of potential risk factors. A comparison is performed between 3 different Cox models (with all variables, backward selection and LASSO) and 3 machine learning techniques: a random survival forest and 2 partial logistic artificial neural networks (PLANNs). For PLANNs, novel extensions to their original specification are tested. Emphasis is given on the advantages and pitfalls of each method and on the interpretability of the ML techniques.

resultsWell-established predictive measures are employed from the survival field (C-index, Brier score and Integrated Brier Score) and the strongest prognostic factors are identified for each model. Clinical endpoint is overall graft-survival defined as the time between transplantation and the date of graft-failure or death. The random survival forest shows slightly better predictive performance than Cox models based on the C-index. Neural networks show better performance than both Cox models and random survival forest based on the Integrated Brier Score at 10 years.

conclusionIn this work, it is shown that machine learning techniques can be a useful tool for both prediction and interpretation in the survival context. From the ML techniques examined here, PLANN with 1 hidden layer predicts survival probabilities the most accurately, being as calibrated as the Cox model with all variables.

trial registrationRetrospective data were provided by the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients under Data Use Agreement number 9477 for analysis of risk factors after liver transplantation.

Indexed as

Liver TransplantationHumansMachine LearningNeural Networks, ComputerProportional Hazards ModelsRetrospective StudiesNeural networksPost-transplantationPredictive performanceRandom survival forestRisk factorsSurvival analysis

Identifiers

PMID33198650
PMCPMC7667810

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.