| Literature DB >> 35607394 |
Riddhi Chawla1, S Balaji2, Raed N Alabdali3, Ibrahim A Naguib4, Nadir O Hamed5, Heba Y Zahran6,7,8.
Abstract
A variety of receptor and donor characteristics influence long-and short-term kidney graft survival. It is critical to predict the effectiveness of kidney transplantation to optimise organ allocation. This would allow patients to choose the best accessible kidney donor and the optimal immunosuppressive medication. Several studies have attempted to identify factors that predispose to graft rejection, but the results have been contradictory. As a result, the goal of this paper is to use the African buffalo-based artificial neural network (AB-ANN) approach to uncover predictive risk variables related to kidney graft. These two feature selection approaches combine to provide a novel hybrid feature selection technique that could select the most important elements to improve prediction accuracy. The feature analysis revealed that clinical features have varied effects on transplant survival. The collected data is processed in both training and testing methods. The prediction model's performance, in terms of accuracy, precision, recall, and F-measure, was examined, and the results were compared with those of other existing systems, including naive Bayesian, random forest, and J48 classifier. The results suggest that the proposed approach can forecast graft survival in kidney recipients' next visits in a creative manner and with more accuracy compared with other classifiers. This proposed method is more efficient for predicting kidney graft survival. Incorporating those clinical tools into outpatient clinics' everyday workflows could help physicians make better and more personalised decisions.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35607394 PMCID: PMC9124117 DOI: 10.1155/2022/6503714
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Healthc Eng ISSN: 2040-2295 Impact factor: 3.822
Figure 1A novel AB-ANN prediction model.
Algorithm 1Proposed AB-ANN algorithm.
Error rate comparison of existing and proposed methods.
| Methods | Root mean square error (%) | Mean absolute error (%) |
|---|---|---|
| Naïve Bayesian | 57.44 | 38.79 |
| J48 | 52.23 | 36.83 |
| Random forest | 41.99 | 34.08 |
| Proposed (AB-ANN) | 15.4 | 9.3 |
Figure 2Comparison of RMSE and MAE.
Accuracy comparison of existing and proposed methods.
| References | Technique | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Feature selection | Classification | Accuracy (%) | |
| [ | Data analytic method | Bayes net classifier | 68.4 |
| [ | Kaplan–Meier | Nomogram | 72 |
| Proposed | IG + ABO | ANN | 99.89 |
Figure 3Comparison of accuracy.
Precision comparison of existing and proposed methods.
| Methods | Precision (%) |
|---|---|
| Naïve Bayesian | 68.3 |
| J48 | 63.1 |
| Random forest | 57.1 |
| Proposed (AB-ANN) | 97.6 |
Figure 4Comparison of precision.
Recall comparison of existing and proposed methods.
| Methods | Recall (%) |
|---|---|
| Naïve Bayesian | 60.6 |
| J48 | 68.1 |
| Random forest | 75.4 |
| Proposed (AB-ANN) | 98.2 |
Figure 5Comparison of recall.
F-measure comparison of existing and proposed methods.
| Methods | F-measure (%) |
|---|---|
| Naïve Bayesian | 62.5 |
| J48 | 64.3 |
| Random forest | 65 |
| Proposed (AB-ANN) | 99.2 |
Figure 6Comparison of F-measure.