Machine learning-based comparison of factors influencing estimated glomerular filtration rate in Chinese women with or without non-alcoholic fatty liver
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND The prevalence of non-alcoholic fatty liver (NAFLD) has increased recently. Subjects with NAFLD are known to have higher chance for renal function impairment. Many past studies used traditional multiple linear regression (MLR) to identify risk factors for decreased estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). However, medical research is increasingly relying on emerging machine learning (Mach-L) methods. The present study enrolled healthy women to identify factors affecting eGFR in subjects with and without NAFLD (NAFLD+, NAFLD-) and to rank their importance. AIM To uses three different Mach-L methods to identify key impact factors for eGFR in healthy women with and without NAFLD. METHODS A total of 65535 healthy female study participants were enrolled from the Taiwan MJ cohort, accounting for 32 independent variables including demographic, biochemistry and lifestyle parameters (independent variables), while eGFR was used as the dependent variable. Aside from MLR, three Mach-L methods were applied, including stochastic gradient boosting, eXtreme gradient boosting and elastic net. Errors of estimation were used to define method accuracy, where smaller degree of error indicated better model performance. RESULTS Income, albumin, eGFR, High density lipoprotein-Cholesterol, phosphorus, forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1), and sleep time were all lower in the NAFLD+ group, while other factors were all significantly higher except for smoking area. Mach-L had lower estimation errors, thus outperforming MLR. In Model 1, age, uric acid (UA), FEV1, plasma calcium level (Ca), plasma albumin level (Alb) and T-bilirubin were the most important factors in the NAFLD+ group, as opposed to age, UA, FEV1, Alb, lactic dehydrogenase (LDH) and Ca for the NAFLD- group. Given the importance percentage was much higher than the 2nd important factor, we built Model 2 by removing age. CONCLUSION The eGFR were lower in the NAFLD+ group compared to the NAFLD- group, with age being was the most important impact factor in both groups of healthy Chinese women, followed by LDH, UA, FEV1 and Alb. However, for the NAFLD- group, TSH and SBP were the 5th and 6th most important factors, as opposed to Ca and BF in the NAFLD+ group.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".