MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4378187052 · doi:10.18280/ria.370226

Prediction of Chronic Kidney Disease with Machine Learning Models and Feature Analysis Using SHAP

2023· article· en· W4378187052 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yalamanchili Surekha, N. Ramesh Babu N. Ramesh Babu, Tejaswi Lanka, Manvitha Akshaya Volla, Manikanta Pillutla, Ajay Kari

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue d intelligence artificielle · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFeature (linguistics)Kidney diseaseArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceMedicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The world is significantly impacted by chronic kidney disease (CKD), both in terms of the health and financial costs.CKD is becoming a bigger issue globally, especially in low-and middle-income nations.According to the Global Burden of Disease Survey, 697.5 million people worldwide suffered from chronic kidney disease (CKD) in 2019.Addressing the burden of CKD requires a comprehensive approach that includes prevention, earlydetection, and effective management of the condition.The main objective of this research work is to utilize Machine Learning methodologies to facilitate the diagnosis of Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD) by leveraging relevant clinical details.To accomplish this, the classification models Logistic Regression, Random Forest, Voting Classifier and Support Vector Machine are employed to distinguish patients with CKD from those without.The evaluation shows that according to the evaluations matrices Voting Classifier with soft voting showed an average classification accuracy of 98%, f1-score of 97.4%, precision of 95%, recall of 100%.Random Forest classifier showed an average classification accuracy of 96%, f1-score of 95%, precision of 90.4%, recall of 100%.Logistic regression classifier showed an average classification accuracy of 94%, f1-score of 92.6%, precision of 86.3%, recall of 100%.Support Vector Machine classifier showed an average classification accuracy of 90%, f1-score of 88.3%, precision of 79.1%, recall of 100% and proves that Voting Classifier performed well which is immediately followed by Random Forest and then Logistic Regression.Furthermore, the SHAP (SHapley Additive exPlanations) model interpretability technique is utilized to analyze the significance of each feature in determining output.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.188
Threshold uncertainty score0.906

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.196
GPT teacher head0.410
Teacher spread0.214 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue d intelligence artificielleSame topicArtificial Intelligence in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207