Literature DB >> 34756569

Dynamic prediction of renal survival among deeply phenotyped kidney transplant recipients using artificial intelligence: an observational, international, multicohort study.

Marc Raynaud1, Olivier Aubert2, Gillian Divard2, Peter P Reese3, Nassim Kamar4, Daniel Yoo1, Chen-Shan Chin5, Élodie Bailly6, Matthias Buchler6, Marc Ladrière7, Moglie Le Quintrec8, Michel Delahousse9, Ivana Juric10, Nikolina Basic-Jukic10, Marta Crespo11, Helio Tedesco Silva12, Kamilla Linhares12, Maria Cristina Ribeiro de Castro13, Gervasio Soler Pujol14, Jean-Philippe Empana1, Camilo Ulloa15, Enver Akalin16, Georg Böhmig17, Edmund Huang18, Mark D Stegall19, Andrew J Bentall19, Robert A Montgomery20, Stanley C Jordan18, Rainer Oberbauer21, Dorry L Segev22, John J Friedewald23, Xavier Jouven24, Christophe Legendre2, Carmen Lefaucheur25, Alexandre Loupy26.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Kidney allograft failure is a common cause of end-stage renal disease. We aimed to develop a dynamic artificial intelligence approach to enhance risk stratification for kidney transplant recipients by generating continuously refined predictions of survival using updates of clinical data.
METHODS: In this observational study, we used data from adult recipients of kidney transplants from 18 academic transplant centres in Europe, the USA, and South America, and a cohort of patients from six randomised controlled trials. The development cohort comprised patients from four centres in France, with all other patients included in external validation cohorts. To build deeply phenotyped cohorts of transplant recipients, the following data were collected in the development cohort: clinical, histological, immunological variables, and repeated measurements of estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and proteinuria (measured using the proteinuria to creatininuria ratio). To develop a dynamic prediction system based on these clinical assessments and repeated measurements, we used a Bayesian joint models-an artificial intelligence approach. The prediction performances of the model were assessed via discrimination, through calculation of the area under the receiver operator curve (AUC), and calibration. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04258891.
FINDINGS: 13 608 patients were included (3774 in the development cohort and 9834 in the external validation cohorts) and contributed 89 328 patient-years of data, and 416 510 eGFR and proteinuria measurements. Bayesian joint models showed that recipient immunological profile, allograft interstitial fibrosis and tubular atrophy, allograft inflammation, and repeated measurements of eGFR and proteinuria were independent risk factors for allograft survival. The final model showed accurate calibration and very high discrimination in the development cohort (overall dynamic AUC 0·857 [95% CI 0·847-0·866]) with a persistent improvement in AUCs for each new repeated measurement (from 0·780 [0·768-0·794] to 0·926 [0·917-0·932]; p<0·0001). The predictive performance was confirmed in the external validation cohorts from Europe (overall AUC 0·845 [0·837-0·854]), the USA (overall AUC 0·820 [0·808-0·831]), South America (overall AUC 0·868 [0·856-0·880]), and the cohort of patients from randomised controlled trials (overall AUC 0·857 [0·840-0·875]).
INTERPRETATION: Because of its dynamic design, this model can be continuously updated and holds value as a bedside tool that could refine the prognostic judgements of clinicians in everyday practice, hence enhancing precision medicine in the transplant setting. FUNDING: MSD Avenir, French National Institute for Health and Medical Research, and Bettencourt Schueller Foundation.
Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34756569     DOI: 10.1016/S2589-7500(21)00209-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Lancet Digit Health        ISSN: 2589-7500


  7 in total

Review 1.  Antibody-mediated rejection: prevention, monitoring and treatment dilemmas.

Authors:  Sonia Rodriguez-Ramirez; Ayman Al Jurdi; Ana Konvalinka; Leonardo V Riella
Journal:  Curr Opin Organ Transplant       Date:  2022-08-11       Impact factor: 2.269

Review 2.  Molecular Markers of Kidney Transplantation Outcome: Current Omics Tools and Future Developments.

Authors:  Maryne Lepoittevin; Thomas Kerforne; Luc Pellerin; Thierry Hauet; Raphael Thuillier
Journal:  Int J Mol Sci       Date:  2022-06-05       Impact factor: 6.208

Review 3.  The potential of artificial intelligence-based applications in kidney pathology.

Authors:  Roman D Büllow; Jon N Marsh; S Joshua Swamidass; Joseph P Gaut; Peter Boor
Journal:  Curr Opin Nephrol Hypertens       Date:  2022-02-14       Impact factor: 3.416

Review 4.  Clinical Applications of Artificial Intelligence-An Updated Overview.

Authors:  Ștefan Busnatu; Adelina-Gabriela Niculescu; Alexandra Bolocan; George E D Petrescu; Dan Nicolae Păduraru; Iulian Năstasă; Mircea Lupușoru; Marius Geantă; Octavian Andronic; Alexandru Mihai Grumezescu; Henrique Martins
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2022-04-18       Impact factor: 4.964

Review 5.  Pretransplant characteristics of kidney transplant recipients that predict posttransplant outcome.

Authors:  Martin Tepel; Subagini Nagarajah; Qais Saleh; Olivier Thaunat; Stephan J L Bakker; Jacob van den Born; Morten A Karsdal; Federica Genovese; Daniel G K Rasmussen
Journal:  Front Immunol       Date:  2022-07-25       Impact factor: 8.786

Review 6.  Exfoliated Kidney Cells from Urine for Early Diagnosis and Prognostication of CKD: The Way of the Future?

Authors:  Henry H L Wu; Ewa M Goldys; Carol A Pollock; Sonia Saad
Journal:  Int J Mol Sci       Date:  2022-07-09       Impact factor: 6.208

Review 7.  Joint models for dynamic prediction in localised prostate cancer: a literature review.

Authors:  Harry Parr; Emma Hall; Nuria Porta
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2022-09-19       Impact factor: 4.612

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.