MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400098682 · doi:10.3389/fgene.2024.1409755

Development and evaluation of a chronic kidney disease risk prediction model using random forest

2024· article· en· W4400098682 on OpenAlexafffund
Krish Mendapara

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Genetics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersFondation Rideau Hall
KeywordsRandom forestKidney diseaseComputer scienceRisk modelArtificial intelligenceMedicineRisk analysis (engineering)Internal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This research aims to advance the detection of Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD) through a novel gene-based predictive model, leveraging recent breakthroughs in gene sequencing. We sourced and merged gene expression profiles of CKD-affected renal tissues from the Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO) database, classifying them into two sets for training and validation in a 7:3 ratio. The training set included 141 CKD and 33 non-CKD specimens, while the validation set had 60 and 14, respectively. The disease risk prediction model was constructed using the training dataset, while the validation dataset confirmed the model's identification capabilities. The development of our predictive model began with evaluating differentially expressed genes (DEGs) between the two groups. We isolated six genes using Lasso and random forest (RF) methods-DUSP1, GADD45B, IFI44L, IFI30, ATF3, and LYZ-which are critical in differentiating CKD from non-CKD tissues. We refined our random forest (RF) model through 10-fold cross-validation, repeated five times, to optimize the mtry parameter. The performance of our model was robust, with an average AUC of 0.979 across the folds, translating to a 91.18% accuracy. Validation tests further confirmed its efficacy, with a 94.59% accuracy and an AUC of 0.990. External validation using dataset GSE180394 yielded an AUC of 0.913, 89.83% accuracy, and a sensitivity rate of 0.889, underscoring the model's reliability. In summary, the study identified critical genetic biomarkers and successfully developed a novel disease risk prediction model for CKD. This model can serve as a valuable tool for CKD disease risk assessment and contribute significantly to CKD identification.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.136
GPT teacher head0.440
Teacher spread0.304 · 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

Citations11
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in GeneticsSame topicArtificial Intelligence in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207