MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Temporal shift and accuracy of machine learning in heart transplant outcomes

2021· article· en· W4386871681 on OpenAlexaff
František Sabovčik, Robert J.H. Miller, Nicholas Cauwenberghs, Ruben Hoffmann, François Haddad, Tatiana Kuznetsova

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTransplantation: Methods and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsLibin Cardiovascular Institute of Alberta
FundersVlaamse regeringFonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek
KeywordsMedicineLogistic regressionRandom forestReceiver operating characteristicHyperparameterHeart transplantationMachine learningArtificial intelligenceTransplantationInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Accurate prediction of outcomes following a heart transplant is critical to explaining risks and benefits to patients and decision-making when considering potential organ offers. Given the large number of potential variables to be considered, this task may be most efficiently performed using machine learning (ML). Purpose We trained and tested different ML algorithms to accurately predict outcomes following a cardiac transplant using the United Network of Organ Sharing (UNOS) database. Methods We included 67 939 adult and pediatric patients enrolled in the UNOS database between January 1994 and December 2016 who underwent cardiac transplantation (median age 53 [IQR 38 – 60], 72.7% males). In our models, as an input, we included 114 features that have been collected from recipients and donors prior to transplant. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at one-year post-transplant. We evaluated three different ML methods: XGBoost, Random Forest (RF) and L2 regularized logistic regression. Algorithms were trained and tested using shuffled 10-fold cross-validation (CV) as well as rolling CV. In the rolling CV, to mimic prospective procedure, ML models were trained by incrementally adding patients according to transplant year and testing models on the data in the following year. The hyperparameters, controlling the learning process, were tuned using Bayesian optimization. Prognostic accuracy for one-year all-cause mortality was characterized using the area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC). Results In total, 8,394 patients died within 1 year of transplant. We observed a substantial difference in prognostic accuracy between the shuffled 10-fold CV and the rolling CV. In the 10-fold CV, XGBoost and RF achieved high predictive performance with AUC of 0.848 (95% CI: 0.842–0.854) and 0.891 (95% CI: 0.886–0.896), respectively. In the rolling CV, which is a more realistic setting, AUC dropped to 0.673 (95% CI: 0.661–0.684) for XGBoost and 0.670 (0.657–0.683) for RF. Predictive performance of L2 regularized logistic regression remained stable across the two CV procedures, achieving AUC 0.669 (95% CI: 0.662–0.676) in the 10-fold shuffled CV and 0.665 (95% CI: 0.649–0.680) in the rolling CV procedure (Figure). Conclusions Our study suggests that ML models could be used to predict mortality in the first year post-transplant. We also show that the choice of CV procedure is crucial for evaluating ML models, particularly in data collected over a long period of time. The difference between the shuffled and rolling CV in the predictive performance of the tree-based ML models might indicate temporal dataset shift. In the rolling CV, all three methods achieved similar predictive performance. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding sources: Public grant(s) – National budget only. Main funding source(s): Research Foundation Flanders (FWO)

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.039
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.076

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.039
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.296 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart Journal→Same topicTransplantation: Methods and Outcomes→French-language works237,207→