Masoud Barah1, Sanjay Mehrotra1,2,3. 1. Department of Industrial Engineering and Management Sciences, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL. 2. Center for Engineering and Health, Institute for Public Health and Medicine, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL. 3. Northwestern University Transplant Outcomes Research Collaborative (NUTORC), Comprehensive Transplant Center, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite the kidney supply shortage, 18%-20% of deceased donor kidneys are discarded annually in the United States. In 2018, 3569 kidneys were discarded. METHODS: We compared machine learning (ML) techniques to identify kidneys at risk of discard at the time of match run and after biopsy and machine perfusion results become available. The cohort consisted of adult deceased donor kidneys donated between December 4, 2014, and July 1, 2019. The studied ML models included Random Forests (RF), Adaptive Boosting (AdaBoost), Neural Networks (NNet), Support Vector Machines (SVM), and K-nearest Neighbors (KNN). In addition, a Logistic Regression (LR) model was fitted and used for comparison with the ML models' performance. RESULTS: RF outperformed other ML models. Of 8036 discarded kidneys in the test dataset, LR correctly classified 3422 kidneys, whereas RF correctly classified 4762 kidneys (area under the receiver operative curve [AUC]: 0.85 versus 0.888, and balanced accuracy: 0.681 versus 0.759). For the kidneys with kidney donor profile index of >85% (6079 total), RF significantly outperformed LR in classifying discard and transplant prediction (AUC: 0.814 versus 0.717, and balanced accuracy: 0.732 versus 0.657). More than 388 kidneys were correctly classified using RF. Including biopsy and machine perfusion variables improved the performance of LR and RF (LR's AUC: 0.888 and balanced accuracy: 0.74 versus RF's AUC: 0.904 and balanced accuracy: 0.775). CONCLUSIONS: Kidneys that are at risk of discard can be more accurately identified using ML techniques such as RF.
BACKGROUND: Despite the kidney supply shortage, 18%-20% of deceased donor kidneys are discarded annually in the United States. In 2018, 3569 kidneys were discarded. METHODS: We compared machine learning (ML) techniques to identify kidneys at risk of discard at the time of match run and after biopsy and machine perfusion results become available. The cohort consisted of adult deceased donor kidneys donated between December 4, 2014, and July 1, 2019. The studied ML models included Random Forests (RF), Adaptive Boosting (AdaBoost), Neural Networks (NNet), Support Vector Machines (SVM), and K-nearest Neighbors (KNN). In addition, a Logistic Regression (LR) model was fitted and used for comparison with the ML models' performance. RESULTS: RF outperformed other ML models. Of 8036 discarded kidneys in the test dataset, LR correctly classified 3422 kidneys, whereas RF correctly classified 4762 kidneys (area under the receiver operative curve [AUC]: 0.85 versus 0.888, and balanced accuracy: 0.681 versus 0.759). For the kidneys with kidney donor profile index of >85% (6079 total), RF significantly outperformed LR in classifying discard and transplant prediction (AUC: 0.814 versus 0.717, and balanced accuracy: 0.732 versus 0.657). More than 388 kidneys were correctly classified using RF. Including biopsy and machine perfusion variables improved the performance of LR and RF (LR's AUC: 0.888 and balanced accuracy: 0.74 versus RF's AUC: 0.904 and balanced accuracy: 0.775). CONCLUSIONS: Kidneys that are at risk of discard can be more accurately identified using ML techniques such as RF.
Authors: Sumit Mohan; Mariana C Chiles; Rachel E Patzer; Stephen O Pastan; S Ali Husain; Dustin J Carpenter; Geoffrey K Dube; R John Crew; Lloyd E Ratner; David J Cohen Journal: Kidney Int Date: 2018-05-05 Impact factor: 10.612
Authors: Carlo Barbieri; Flavio Mari; Andrea Stopper; Emanuele Gatti; Pablo Escandell-Montero; José M Martínez-Martínez; José D Martín-Guerrero Journal: Comput Biol Med Date: 2015-03-23 Impact factor: 4.589
Authors: Sheng Zhou; Allan B Massie; Courtenay M Holscher; Madeleine M Waldram; Tanveen Ishaque; Alvin G Thomas; Dorry L Segev Journal: Transplantation Date: 2019-04 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: William Yang; Kenji Yoshigoe; Xiang Qin; Jun S Liu; Jack Y Yang; Andrzej Niemierko; Youping Deng; Yunlong Liu; A Dunker; Zhongxue Chen; Liangjiang Wang; Dong Xu; Hamid R Arabnia; Weida Tong; Mary Yang Journal: BMC Bioinformatics Date: 2014-12-16 Impact factor: 3.169
Authors: Alexander Decruyenaere; Philippe Decruyenaere; Patrick Peeters; Frank Vermassen; Tom Dhaene; Ivo Couckuyt Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Date: 2015-10-14 Impact factor: 2.796