Cargando…
Prediction model of acute kidney injury after different types of acute aortic dissection based on machine learning
OBJECTIVE: A clinical prediction model for postoperative combined Acute kidney injury (AKI) in patients with Type A acute aortic dissection (TAAAD) and Type B acute aortic dissection (TBAAD) was constructed by using Machine Learning (ML). METHODS: Baseline data was collected from Acute aortic divisi...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Frontiers Media S.A.
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9535339/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36211563 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fcvm.2022.984772 |
_version_ | 1784802750191632384 |
---|---|
author | Xinsai, Li Zhengye, Wang Xuan, Huang Xueqian, Chu Kai, Peng Sisi, Chen Xuyan, Jiang Suhua, Li |
author_facet | Xinsai, Li Zhengye, Wang Xuan, Huang Xueqian, Chu Kai, Peng Sisi, Chen Xuyan, Jiang Suhua, Li |
author_sort | Xinsai, Li |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVE: A clinical prediction model for postoperative combined Acute kidney injury (AKI) in patients with Type A acute aortic dissection (TAAAD) and Type B acute aortic dissection (TBAAD) was constructed by using Machine Learning (ML). METHODS: Baseline data was collected from Acute aortic division (AAD) patients admitted to First Affiliated Hospital of Xinjiang Medical University between January 1, 2019 and December 31, 2021. (1) We identified baseline Serum creatinine (SCR) estimation methods and used them as a basis for diagnosis of AKI. (2) Divide their total datasets randomly into Training set (70%) and Test set (30%), Bootstrap modeling and validation of features using multiple ML methods in the training set, and select models corresponding to the largest Area Under Curve (AUC) for follow-up studies. (3) Screening of the best ML model variables through the model visualization tools Shapley Addictive Explanations (SHAP) and Recursive feature reduction (REF). (4) Finally, the pre-screened prediction models were evaluated using test set data from three aspects: discrimination, Calibration, and clinical benefit. RESULTS: The final incidence of AKI was 69.4% (120/173) in 173 patients with TAAAD and 28.6% (81/283) in 283 patients with TBAAD. For TAAAD-AKI, the Random Forest (RF) model showed the best prediction performance in the training set (AUC = 0.760, 95% CI:0.630–0.881); while for TBAAD-AKI, the Light Gradient Boosting Machine (LightGBM) model worked best (AUC = 0.734, 95% CI:0.623–0.847). Screening of the characteristic variables revealed that the common predictors among the two final prediction models for postoperative AKI due to AAD were baseline SCR, Blood urea nitrogen (BUN) and Uric acid (UA) at admission, Mechanical ventilation time (MVT). The specific predictors in the TAAAD-AKI model are: White blood cell (WBC), Platelet (PLT) and D dimer at admission, Plasma The specific predictors in the TBAAD-AKI model were N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP), Serum kalium, Activated partial thromboplastin time (APTT) and Systolic blood pressure (SBP) at admission, Combined renal arteriography in surgery. Finally, we used in terms of Discrimination, the ROC value of the RF model for TAAAD was 0.81 and the ROC value of the LightGBM model for TBAAD was 0.74, both with good accuracy. In terms of calibration, the calibration curve of TAAAD-AKI's RF fits the ideal curve the best and has the lowest and smallest Brier score (0.16). Similarly, the calibration curve of TBAAD-AKI's LightGBM model fits the ideal curve the best and has the smallest Brier score (0.15). In terms of Clinical benefit, the best ML models for both types of AAD have good Net benefit as shown by Decision Curve Analysis (DCA). CONCLUSION: We successfully constructed and validated clinical prediction models for the occurrence of AKI after surgery in TAAAD and TBAAD patients using different ML algorithms. The main predictors of the two types of AAD-AKI are somewhat different, and the strategies for early prevention and control of AKI are also different and need more external data for validation. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9535339 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | Frontiers Media S.A. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-95353392022-10-07 Prediction model of acute kidney injury after different types of acute aortic dissection based on machine learning Xinsai, Li Zhengye, Wang Xuan, Huang Xueqian, Chu Kai, Peng Sisi, Chen Xuyan, Jiang Suhua, Li Front Cardiovasc Med Cardiovascular Medicine OBJECTIVE: A clinical prediction model for postoperative combined Acute kidney injury (AKI) in patients with Type A acute aortic dissection (TAAAD) and Type B acute aortic dissection (TBAAD) was constructed by using Machine Learning (ML). METHODS: Baseline data was collected from Acute aortic division (AAD) patients admitted to First Affiliated Hospital of Xinjiang Medical University between January 1, 2019 and December 31, 2021. (1) We identified baseline Serum creatinine (SCR) estimation methods and used them as a basis for diagnosis of AKI. (2) Divide their total datasets randomly into Training set (70%) and Test set (30%), Bootstrap modeling and validation of features using multiple ML methods in the training set, and select models corresponding to the largest Area Under Curve (AUC) for follow-up studies. (3) Screening of the best ML model variables through the model visualization tools Shapley Addictive Explanations (SHAP) and Recursive feature reduction (REF). (4) Finally, the pre-screened prediction models were evaluated using test set data from three aspects: discrimination, Calibration, and clinical benefit. RESULTS: The final incidence of AKI was 69.4% (120/173) in 173 patients with TAAAD and 28.6% (81/283) in 283 patients with TBAAD. For TAAAD-AKI, the Random Forest (RF) model showed the best prediction performance in the training set (AUC = 0.760, 95% CI:0.630–0.881); while for TBAAD-AKI, the Light Gradient Boosting Machine (LightGBM) model worked best (AUC = 0.734, 95% CI:0.623–0.847). Screening of the characteristic variables revealed that the common predictors among the two final prediction models for postoperative AKI due to AAD were baseline SCR, Blood urea nitrogen (BUN) and Uric acid (UA) at admission, Mechanical ventilation time (MVT). The specific predictors in the TAAAD-AKI model are: White blood cell (WBC), Platelet (PLT) and D dimer at admission, Plasma The specific predictors in the TBAAD-AKI model were N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP), Serum kalium, Activated partial thromboplastin time (APTT) and Systolic blood pressure (SBP) at admission, Combined renal arteriography in surgery. Finally, we used in terms of Discrimination, the ROC value of the RF model for TAAAD was 0.81 and the ROC value of the LightGBM model for TBAAD was 0.74, both with good accuracy. In terms of calibration, the calibration curve of TAAAD-AKI's RF fits the ideal curve the best and has the lowest and smallest Brier score (0.16). Similarly, the calibration curve of TBAAD-AKI's LightGBM model fits the ideal curve the best and has the smallest Brier score (0.15). In terms of Clinical benefit, the best ML models for both types of AAD have good Net benefit as shown by Decision Curve Analysis (DCA). CONCLUSION: We successfully constructed and validated clinical prediction models for the occurrence of AKI after surgery in TAAAD and TBAAD patients using different ML algorithms. The main predictors of the two types of AAD-AKI are somewhat different, and the strategies for early prevention and control of AKI are also different and need more external data for validation. Frontiers Media S.A. 2022-09-21 /pmc/articles/PMC9535339/ /pubmed/36211563 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fcvm.2022.984772 Text en Copyright © 2022 Xinsai, Zhengye, Xuan, Xueqian, Kai, Sisi, Xuyan and Suhua. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms. |
spellingShingle | Cardiovascular Medicine Xinsai, Li Zhengye, Wang Xuan, Huang Xueqian, Chu Kai, Peng Sisi, Chen Xuyan, Jiang Suhua, Li Prediction model of acute kidney injury after different types of acute aortic dissection based on machine learning |
title | Prediction model of acute kidney injury after different types of acute aortic dissection based on machine learning |
title_full | Prediction model of acute kidney injury after different types of acute aortic dissection based on machine learning |
title_fullStr | Prediction model of acute kidney injury after different types of acute aortic dissection based on machine learning |
title_full_unstemmed | Prediction model of acute kidney injury after different types of acute aortic dissection based on machine learning |
title_short | Prediction model of acute kidney injury after different types of acute aortic dissection based on machine learning |
title_sort | prediction model of acute kidney injury after different types of acute aortic dissection based on machine learning |
topic | Cardiovascular Medicine |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9535339/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36211563 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fcvm.2022.984772 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT xinsaili predictionmodelofacutekidneyinjuryafterdifferenttypesofacuteaorticdissectionbasedonmachinelearning AT zhengyewang predictionmodelofacutekidneyinjuryafterdifferenttypesofacuteaorticdissectionbasedonmachinelearning AT xuanhuang predictionmodelofacutekidneyinjuryafterdifferenttypesofacuteaorticdissectionbasedonmachinelearning AT xueqianchu predictionmodelofacutekidneyinjuryafterdifferenttypesofacuteaorticdissectionbasedonmachinelearning AT kaipeng predictionmodelofacutekidneyinjuryafterdifferenttypesofacuteaorticdissectionbasedonmachinelearning AT sisichen predictionmodelofacutekidneyinjuryafterdifferenttypesofacuteaorticdissectionbasedonmachinelearning AT xuyanjiang predictionmodelofacutekidneyinjuryafterdifferenttypesofacuteaorticdissectionbasedonmachinelearning AT suhuali predictionmodelofacutekidneyinjuryafterdifferenttypesofacuteaorticdissectionbasedonmachinelearning |