| Literature DB >> 29049326 |
Lufeng Hu1, Huaizhong Li2, Zhennao Cai3, Feiyan Lin1, Guangliang Hong4, Huiling Chen3, Zhongqiu Lu4.
Abstract
The prognosis of paraquat (PQ) poisoning is highly correlated to plasma PQ concentration, which has been identified as the most important index in PQ poisoning. This study investigated the predictive value of coagulation, liver, and kidney indices in prognosticating PQ-poisoning patients, when aligned with plasma PQ concentrations. Coagulation, liver, and kidney indices were first analyzed by variance analysis, receiver operating characteristic curves, and Fisher discriminant analysis. Then, a new, intelligent, machine learning-based system was established to effectively provide prognostic analysis of PQ-poisoning patients based on a combination of the aforementioned indices. In the proposed system, an enhanced extreme learning machine wrapped with a grey wolf-optimization strategy was developed to predict the risk status from a pool of 103 patients (56 males and 47 females); of these, 52 subjects were deceased and 51 alive. The proposed method was rigorously evaluated against this real-life dataset, in terms of accuracy, Matthews correlation coefficients, sensitivity, and specificity. Additionally, the feature selection was investigated to identify correlating factors for risk status. The results demonstrated that there were significant differences in the coagulation, liver, and kidney indices between deceased and surviving subjects (p<0.05). Aspartate aminotransferase, prothrombin time, prothrombin activity, total bilirubin, direct bilirubin, indirect bilirubin, alanine aminotransferase, urea nitrogen, and creatinine were the most highly correlated indices in PQ poisoning and showed statistical significance (p<0.05) in predicting PQ-poisoning prognoses. According to the feature selection, the most important correlated indices were found to be associated with aspartate aminotransferase, the aspartate aminotransferase to alanine ratio, creatinine, prothrombin time, and prothrombin activity. The method proposed here showed excellent results that were better than that produced based on blood-PQ concentration alone. These promising results indicated that the combination of these indices can provide a new avenue for prognosticating the outcome of PQ poisoning.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 29049326 PMCID: PMC5648192 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0186427
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Flowchart of the proposed method.
The indices of coagulation, liver, kidney test in this study.
| No. | Index | Abbreviation |
|---|---|---|
| F1 | prothrombin time | PT |
| F2 | prothrombin activity | PTA |
| F3 | international normalized ratio | INR |
| F4 | Fibrinogen | FIB |
| F5 | activated partial thromboplastin | ATPP |
| F6 | ratio of APTT | RAPTT |
| F7 | thrombin time | TT |
| F8 | prothrombin time ratio | PTR |
| F9 | total bilirubin | TBil |
| F10 | direct bilirubin | DBIL |
| F11 | indirect bilirubin | IBIL |
| F12 | total protein | TP |
| F13 | albumin | Alb |
| F14 | albumin-globulin ratio | Alb/Glo |
| F15 | alanine aminotransferase | ALT |
| F16 | aspartate aminotransferase | AST |
| F17 | ratio of aspartate aminotransferase to alanine | ALT/AST |
| F18 | Glucose | Glu |
| F19 | urea nitrogen | BUN |
| F20 | creatinine | CR |
Variance analysis of PQ poisoned patients in deceased group (n = 52) and survival group (n = 51).
| Index | First time test | Last time test | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Survival | Deceased | P | Survival | Deceased | P | |
| PT | 15.14±3.42 | 17.35±4.39 | 0.006 | 13.70±2.63 | 17.19±4.73 | <0.001 |
| PTA | 81.72±12.01 | 65.29±21.45 | <0.001 | 88.21±13.54 | 69.52±26.11 | <0.001 |
| INR | 1.16±0.13 | 5.08±25.51 | 0.280 | 1.10±0.11 | 3.05±10.41 | 0.238 |
| FIB | 2.77±1.35 | 6.25±25.35 | 0.334 | 2.93±1.28 | 4.40±1.90 | <0.001 |
| ATPP | 89.89±61.38 | 100.57±63.59 | 0.397 | 47.21±37.73 | 65.23±40.44 | 0.061 |
| RAPTT | 1.71±1.08 | 1.83±1.12 | 0.649 | 1.04±0.24 | 3.34±10.71 | 0.195 |
| TT | 98.27±76.25 | 111.05±79.94 | 0.440 | 40.14±52.46 | 81.37±74.69 | 0.013 |
| PTR | 2.69±2.89 | 2.12±3.77 | 0.538 | 1.70±2.05 | 9.34±34.91 | 0.276 |
| TBil | 18.48±23.91 | 41.08±33.22 | <0.001 | 16.63±33.18 | 141.35±160.54 | 0.001 |
| DBIL | 9.40±19.29 | 28.98±29.61 | <0.001 | 10.00±26.67 | 115.65±132.33 | 0.001 |
| IBIL | 9.45±5.49 | 12.32±5.55 | 0.013 | 7.53±7.45 | 25.70±31.63 | 0.013 |
| TP | 64.83±6.07 | 64.47±6.50 | 0.777 | 60.53±6.28 | 55.01±10.11 | 0.024 |
| Alb | 38.14±4.39 | 37.86±4.72 | 0.769 | 34.11±3.56 | 30.07±4.68 | 0.001 |
| Alb/Glo | 1.45±0.26 | 1.45±0.25 | 0.936 | 1.32±0.19 | 1.26±0.27 | 0.348 |
| ALT | 63.82±111.80 | 168.94±183.42 | 0.001 | 72.45±99.32 | 293.35±292.40 | 0.002 |
| AST | 47.10±58.27 | 240.38±225.84 | <0.001 | 37.43±63.24 | 161.78±147.43 | 0.001 |
| ALT/AST | 1.05±0.73 | 0.67±0.40 | 0.002 | 2.12 ±1.00 | 2.19±1.88 | 0.875 |
| Glu | 7.65±2.27 | 8.54±3.99 | 0.178 | 5.56±1.51 | 6.24±2.01 | 0.111 |
| BUN | 5.53±4.63 | 7.69±5.31 | 0.030 | 7.38±3.58 | 13.40±6.86 | <0.001 |
| CR | 95.02±109.59 | 167.71±115.86 | 0.001 | 97.55±74.18 | 216.03±111.86 | <0.001 |
Fig 2Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curves for PQ concentration and AST level in PQ-poisoned patients.
ROC curves analysis of PQ concentration and coagulation, liver and kidney indices.
| Variable | AUC | 95% Confidence Interval | P | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lower | Upper | |||
| PQ | 0.933 | 0.885 | 0.981 | <0.001 |
| PT | 0.685 | 0.573 | 0.796 | 0.002 |
| PTA | 0.298 | 0.19 | 0.406 | 0.001 |
| INR | 0.699 | 0.59 | 0.808 | 0.001 |
| TBil | 0.805 | 0.711 | 0.9 | <0.001 |
| DBIL | 0.800 | 0.705 | 0.895 | <0.001 |
| IBIL | 0.698 | 0.588 | 0.807 | 0.001 |
| AST | 0.851 | 0.775 | 0.927 | <0.001 |
| ALT | 0.722 | 0.618 | 0.826 | <0.001 |
| ALT/AST | 0.337 | 0.226 | 0.447 | 0.007 |
| BUN | 0.706 | 0.597 | 0.815 | 0.001 |
| CR | 0.784 | 0.69 | 0.878 | <0.001 |
Fig 3Classification accuracy of ELM versus the number of hidden neurons.
The detailed results obtained by ELM.
| Fold | ACC | MCC | Sensitivity | Specificity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| #1 | 0.9091 | 0.8101 | 0.8750 | 1.0000 |
| #2 | 0.7000 | 0.5345 | 0.5714 | 1.0000 |
| #3 | 1.0000 | 1.0000 | 1.0000 | 1.0000 |
| #4 | 0.6000 | 0.1667 | 0.6667 | 0.5000 |
| #5 | 0.6000 | 0.1021 | 0.5000 | 0.6250 |
| #6 | 0.7273 | 0.4667 | 0.8000 | 0.6667 |
| #7 | 1.0000 | 1.0000 | 1.0000 | 1.0000 |
| #8 | 0.8000 | 0.6547 | 1.0000 | 0.7143 |
| #9 | 0.9091 | 0.8281 | 0.8571 | 1.0000 |
| #10 | 0.9000 | 0.8165 | 0.8000 | 1.0000 |
| Avg. | 0.8145 | 0.6379 | 0.8070 | 0.8506 |
| Dev. | 0.1516 | 0.3179 | 0.1790 | 0.2000 |
Avg. and Dev. means the average value and standard deviation of the 10-fold CV results.
The detailed results obtained by GWO-ELM.
| Fold | Selected feature subset | ACC | MCC | Sensitivity | Specificity |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| #1 | {AST,ALT/AST,CR,PT,PTA} | 0.9000 | 0.8018 | 1.0000 | 0.7500 |
| #2 | {ALT,AST,ALT/AST,CR,PT} | 0.7273 | 0.4485 | 0.7500 | 0.7143 |
| #3 | {AST,ALT/AST,PTA} | 0.9000 | 0.7638 | 0.6667 | 1.0000 |
| #4 | {TP,AST,ALT/AST,Glu,CR,PTA,TT,PTR} | 0.9000 | 0.8018 | 0.8571 | 1.0000 |
| #5 | {AST,ALT/AST,CR,PTA} | 0.9091 | 0.8333 | 1.0000 | 0.8333 |
| #6 | {AST,ALT/AST,CR,PT} | 0.9000 | 0.8018 | 0.7500 | 1.0000 |
| #7 | {AST,ALT/AST,CR,PTA} | 0.9000 | 0.8165 | 0.8333 | 1.0000 |
| #8 | {DBIL,ALT,AST,ALT/AST,Glu,BUN,CR,PTA,PTR} | 0.9000 | 0.8018 | 1.0000 | 0.7500 |
| #9 | {Alb,AST,ALT/AST,CR,PT,PTA} | 0.8182 | 0.6708 | 0.6000 | 1.0000 |
| #10 | {AST,ALT/AST,CR,PT,PTR} | 0.8000 | 0.6667 | 0.6667 | 1.0000 |
Fig 4The frequency of selected features in 10-fold CV.
Fig 5The classification performance obtained by the four methods in terms of ACC, MCC, sensitivity, and specificity.
Fig 6The mean result of the best fitness during the training stage in 10-fold CV procedure obtained by the three methods.
Average frequencies of the selected features by the three methods.
| Feature | Average selected frequencies | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| GA-ELM | PSO-ELM | GWO-ELM | |
| PT | 5 | 5 | 5 |
| PTA | 5 | 6 | 7 |
| INR | 0 | 2 | 0 |
| FIB | 1 | 3 | 0 |
| ATPP | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| RAPTT | 0 | 4 | 0 |
| TT | 2 | 3 | 1 |
| PTR | 1 | 2 | 0 |
| TBil | 6 | 1 | 0 |
| DBIL | 2 | 7 | 1 |
| IBIL | 3 | 0 | 0 |
| TP | 0 | 3 | 1 |
| Alb | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Alb/Glo | 1 | 2 | 0 |
| ALT | 8 | 4 | 2 |
| AST | 7 | 8 | 10 |
| ALT/AST | 7 | 6 | 10 |
| Glu | 4 | 8 | 2 |
| BUN | 0 | 2 | 1 |
| CR | 8 | 6 | 9 |
Fig 7Classification performance obtained by the GWO-ELM method based on the four different indices in terms of ACC, MCC, sensitivity, and specificity.