A machine learning approach towards assessing consistency and reproducibility: an application to graft survival across three kidney transplantation eras
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: (availability of tacrolimus and mycophenolic acid). As such, factors influencing kidney graft failure may vary across these eras. Therefore, evaluating the consistency and reproducibility of models developed to study these variations using machine learning (ML) algorithms could enhance our understanding of post-transplant graft survival dynamics across these three eras. Methods: This study explored the effectiveness of nine ML algorithms in predicting 10-year graft survival across the three eras. We developed and internally validated these algorithms using data spanning the specified eras. The predictive performance of these algorithms was assessed using the area under the curve (AUC) of the receiver operating characteristics curve (ROC), supported by other evaluation metrics. We employed local interpretable model-agnostic explanations to provide detailed interpretations of individual model predictions and used permutation importance to assess global feature importance across each era. Results: era. Our best-performing model across the three eras demonstrated high predictive accuracy. Notably, the ensemble models, particularly the Extra Trees model, emerged as standout performers, consistently achieving high AUC scores of 0.95, 0.95, and 0.97 across the eras. This indicates that the models achieved high consistency and reproducibility in predicting graft survival outcomes. Among the features evaluated, recipient age and donor age were the only features consistently influencing graft failure throughout these eras, while features such as glomerular filtration rate and recipient ethnicity showed high importance in specific eras, resulting in relatively poor historical transportability of the best model. Conclusions: Our study emphasises the significance of analysing post-kidney transplant outcomes and identifying era-specific factors mitigating graft failure. The proposed framework can serve as a foundation for future research and assist physicians in identifying patients at risk of graft failure.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.062 | 0.124 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".