Predicting mortality risk in dialysis: Assessment of risk factors using traditional and advanced modeling techniques within the Monitoring Dialysis Outcomes initiative
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Several factors affect the survival of End Stage Kidney Disease (ESKD) patients on dialysis. Machine learning (ML) models may help tackle multivariable and complex, often non-linear predictors of adverse clinical events in ESKD patients. In this study, we used advanced ML method as well as a traditional statistical method to develop and compare the risk factors for mortality prediction model in hemodialysis (HD) patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We included data HD patients who had data across a baseline period of at least 1 year and 1 day in the internationally representative Monitoring Dialysis Outcomes (MONDO) Initiative dataset. Twenty-three input parameters considered in the model were chosen in an a priori manner. The prediction model used 1 year baseline data to predict death in the following 3 years. The dataset was randomly split into 80% training data and 20% testing data for model development. Two different modeling techniques were used to build the mortality prediction model. FINDINGS: A total of 95,142 patients were included in the analysis sample. The area under the receiver operating curve (AUROC) of the model on the test data with XGBoost ML model was 0.84 on the training data and 0.80 on the test data. AUROC of the logistic regression model was 0.73 on training data and 0.75 on test data. Four out of the top five predictors were common to both modeling strategies. DISCUSSION: In the internationally representative MONDO data for HD patients, we describe the development of a ML model and a traditional statistical model that was suitable for classification of a prevalent HD patient's 3-year risk of death. While both models had a reasonably high AUROC, the ML model was able to identify levels of hematocrit (HCT) as an important risk factor in mortality. If implemented in clinical practice, such proof-of-concept models could be used to provide pre-emptive care for HD patients.
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 | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".