Xuan Song1, Xinyan Liu1, Fei Liu2, Chunting Wang3. 1. ICU, DongE Hospital Affiliated to Shandong First Medical University, Shandong, China. 2. Urology Department, Tai'an Traditional Chinese Medicine Hospital Affiliated to Shandong University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Shandong, China. 3. ICU, Shandong Provincial Hospital Affiliated to Shandong First Medical University, Shandong, China. Electronic address: wcteicu@126.com.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: We aimed to assess whether machine learning models are superior at predicting acute kidney injury (AKI) compared to logistic regression (LR), a conventional prediction model. METHODS: Eligible studies were identified using PubMed and Embase. A total of 24 studies consisting of 84 prediction models met inclusion criteria. Independent samples t-test was performed to detect mean differences in area under the curve (AUC) between ML and LR models. One-way ANOVA and post-hoc t-tests were performed to assess mean differences in AUC between ML methods. RESULTS: AUC data were similar between ML (0.736 ± 0.116) and LR (0.748 ± 0.057) models (p = 0.538). However, specific ML models, such as gradient boosting (0.838 ± 0.077), exhibited superior performance at predicting AKI as compared to other ML models in the literature (p < 0.05). Creatinine and urine output, standard variables assessed for AKI staging, were classified as significant predictors across multiple ML models, although the majority of significant predictors were unique and study specific. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that ML models perform equally to that of LR, however ML models exhibit variable performance with some ML models displaying exceptional performance. The variability in ML prediction of AKI can be attributed, in part, to the specific ML model utilized, variable selection and processing, study and subject characteristics, and the steps associated with model training, validation, testing, and calibration.
INTRODUCTION: We aimed to assess whether machine learning models are superior at predicting acute kidney injury (AKI) compared to logistic regression (LR), a conventional prediction model. METHODS: Eligible studies were identified using PubMed and Embase. A total of 24 studies consisting of 84 prediction models met inclusion criteria. Independent samples t-test was performed to detect mean differences in area under the curve (AUC) between ML and LR models. One-way ANOVA and post-hoc t-tests were performed to assess mean differences in AUC between ML methods. RESULTS: AUC data were similar between ML (0.736 ± 0.116) and LR (0.748 ± 0.057) models (p = 0.538). However, specific ML models, such as gradient boosting (0.838 ± 0.077), exhibited superior performance at predicting AKI as compared to other ML models in the literature (p < 0.05). Creatinine and urine output, standard variables assessed for AKI staging, were classified as significant predictors across multiple ML models, although the majority of significant predictors were unique and study specific. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that ML models perform equally to that of LR, however ML models exhibit variable performance with some ML models displaying exceptional performance. The variability in ML prediction of AKI can be attributed, in part, to the specific ML model utilized, variable selection and processing, study and subject characteristics, and the steps associated with model training, validation, testing, and calibration.
Authors: Robert J Huang; Nicole Sung-Eun Kwon; Yutaka Tomizawa; Alyssa Y Choi; Tina Hernandez-Boussard; Joo Ha Hwang Journal: JCO Clin Cancer Inform Date: 2022-06
Authors: Adriana Argentiero; Giuseppe Muscogiuri; Mark G Rabbat; Chiara Martini; Nicolò Soldato; Paolo Basile; Andrea Baggiano; Saima Mushtaq; Laura Fusini; Maria Elisabetta Mancini; Nicola Gaibazzi; Vincenzo Ezio Santobuono; Sandro Sironi; Gianluca Pontone; Andrea Igoren Guaricci Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-05-19 Impact factor: 4.964
Authors: Paula Dhiman; Jie Ma; Constanza L Andaur Navarro; Benjamin Speich; Garrett Bullock; Johanna A A Damen; Lotty Hooft; Shona Kirtley; Richard D Riley; Ben Van Calster; Karel G M Moons; Gary S Collins Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2022-04-08 Impact factor: 4.615