MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4381309868 · doi:10.2196/45352

Prediction of Outcomes After Heart Transplantation in Pediatric Patients Using National Registry Data: Evaluation of Machine Learning Approaches

2023· article· en· W4381309868 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Michael Killian, Shubo Tian, Aiwen Xing, Dana Hughes, Dipankar Gupta, Xiaoyu Wang, Zhe He

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Cardio · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTransplantation: Methods and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesU.S. National Library of MedicineNational Institutes of HealthFlorida State University
KeywordsGradient boostingAdaBoostMachine learningRandom forestArtificial intelligenceMedicineReceiver operating characteristicSoftmax functionTransplantationMultilayer perceptronLogistic regressionStochastic gradient descentHeart transplantationSupport vector machineComputer scienceInternal medicineArtificial neural network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The prediction of posttransplant health outcomes for pediatric heart transplantation is critical for risk stratification and high-quality posttransplant care. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to examine the use of machine learning (ML) models to predict rejection and mortality for pediatric heart transplant recipients. METHODS: Various ML models were used to predict rejection and mortality at 1, 3, and 5 years after transplantation in pediatric heart transplant recipients using United Network for Organ Sharing data from 1987 to 2019. The variables used for predicting posttransplant outcomes included donor and recipient as well as medical and social factors. We evaluated 7 ML models-extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost), logistic regression, support vector machine, random forest (RF), stochastic gradient descent, multilayer perceptron, and adaptive boosting (AdaBoost)-as well as a deep learning model with 2 hidden layers with 100 neurons and a rectified linear unit (ReLU) activation function followed by batch normalization for each and a classification head with a softmax activation function. We used 10-fold cross-validation to evaluate model performance. Shapley additive explanations (SHAP) values were calculated to estimate the importance of each variable for prediction. RESULTS: RF and AdaBoost models were the best-performing algorithms for different prediction windows across outcomes. RF outperformed other ML algorithms in predicting 5 of the 6 outcomes (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUROC] 0.664 and 0.706 for 1-year and 3-year rejection, respectively, and AUROC 0.697, 0.758, and 0.763 for 1-year, 3-year, and 5-year mortality, respectively). AdaBoost achieved the best performance for prediction of 5-year rejection (AUROC 0.705). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates the comparative utility of ML approaches for modeling posttransplant health outcomes using registry data. ML approaches can identify unique risk factors and their complex relationship with outcomes, thereby identifying patients considered to be at risk and informing the transplant community about the potential of these innovative approaches to improve pediatric care after heart transplantation. Future studies are required to translate the information derived from prediction models to optimize counseling, clinical care, and decision-making within pediatric organ transplant centers.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.033
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.106

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.033
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.219
GPT teacher head0.385
Teacher spread0.166 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations14
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR CardioSame topicTransplantation: Methods and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207