Lack of a centre effect in UK renal units: application of an artificial neural network model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Dialysis centre effect has been suggested to influence survival in end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients. Few studies over the past decade have commented on the existence of the centre effect using logistic regression models. METHODS: We used high quality prospectively collected data from the UK Renal Registry (UKRR) and created an artificial neural network model to predict mortality within 1 year in this cohort. We used a multitude of demographic variables including co-morbodities as well as relevant laboratory data to create a prognostic model. RESULTS: A highly efficient model for predicting 1 year mortality was created after restricting the model to use demographic and case-enriched data [area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) = 0.974]. The addition of the dialysis centre code and centre size as input variables did not add to the efficiency of the model (AUROC = 0.962). Moreover, dialysis centre code or size alone was not predictive of mortality when applied to an artificial neuronal network architecture (AUROC = 0.649 and 0.628). CONCLUSION: Residual effects in previous studies may have been due to the non-linear nature of the data and complex intervariable relationships. Centre size and other centre-related factors have no impact on survival on ESRD.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".