Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37145595›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2023

Machine Learning-Based Prognostic Model for Patients After Lung Transplantation.

Dong Tian, Hao-Ji Yan, Heng Huang, Yu-Jie Zuo, Ming-Zhao Liu, Jin Zhao, Bo Wu, Ling-Zhi Shi, Jing-Yu Chen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 62 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
62citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

2 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

9 authors.

Dong TianDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
Hao-Ji YanDepartment of General Thoracic Surgery, Juntendo University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan.
Heng HuangDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
Yu-Jie ZuoDepartment of Clinical Medicine, North Sichuan Medical College, Nanchong, China.
Ming-Zhao LiuWuxi Lung Transplant Center, Wuxi People's Hospital affiliated to Nanjing Medical University, Wuxi, China.
Jin ZhaoWuxi Lung Transplant Center, Wuxi People's Hospital affiliated to Nanjing Medical University, Wuxi, China.
Bo WuWuxi Lung Transplant Center, Wuxi People's Hospital affiliated to Nanjing Medical University, Wuxi, China.
Ling-Zhi ShiWuxi Lung Transplant Center, Wuxi People's Hospital affiliated to Nanjing Medical University, Wuxi, China.
Jing-Yu ChenWuxi Lung Transplant Center, Wuxi People's Hospital affiliated to Nanjing Medical University, Wuxi, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Although numerous prognostic factors have been found for patients after lung transplantation (LTx) over the years, an accurate prognostic tool for LTx recipients remains unavailable. Objective: To develop and validate a prognostic model for predicting overall survival in patients after LTx using random survival forests (RSF), a machine learning algorithm. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective prognostic study included patients who underwent LTx between January 2017 and December 2020. The LTx recipients were randomly assigned to training and test sets in accordance with a ratio of 7:3. Feature selection was performed using variable importance with bootstrapping resampling. The prognostic model was fitted using the RSF algorithm, and a Cox regression model was set as a benchmark. The integrated area under the curve (iAUC) and integrated Brier score (iBS) were applied to assess model performance in the test set. Data were analyzed from January 2017 to December 2019. Main Outcomes And Measures: Overall survival in patients after LTx. Results: A total of 504 patients were eligible for this study, consisting of 353 patients in the training set (mean [SD] age, 55.03 [12.78] years; 235 [66.6%] male patients) and 151 patients in the test set (mean [SD] age, 56.79 [10.95] years; 99 [65.6%] male patients). According to the variable importance of each factor, 16 were selected for the final RSF model, and postoperative extracorporeal membrane oxygenation time was identified as the most valuable factor. The RSF model had excellent performance with an iAUC of 0.879 (95% CI, 0.832-0.921) and an iBS of 0.130 (95% CI, 0.106-0.154). The Cox regression model fitted by the same modeling factors to the RSF model was significantly inferior to the RSF model with an iAUC of 0.658 (95% CI, 0.572-0.747; P < .001) and an iBS of 0.205 (95% CI, 0.176-0.233; P < .001). According to the RSF model predictions, the patients after LTx were stratified into 2 prognostic groups displaying significant difference, with mean overall survival of 52.91 months (95% CI, 48.51-57.32) and 14.83 months (95% CI, 9.44-20.22; log-rank P < .001), respectively. Conclusions and relevance: In this prognostic study, the findings first demonstrated that RSF could provide more accurate overall survival prediction and remarkable prognostic stratification than the Cox regression model for patients after LTx.

Indexed as

Lung TransplantationMachine LearningAdultAgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPrognosisRetrospective Studies

Identifiers

PMID37145595
PMCPMC10163387

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.