Literature DB >> 8161267

Predicting outcomes after liver transplantation. A connectionist approach.

H R Doyle1, I Dvorchik, S Mitchell, I R Marino, F H Ebert, J McMichael, J J Fung.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The authors sought to train an artificial neural network to predict early outcomes after orthotopic liver transplantation. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Reliable prediction of outcomes early after liver transplantation would help improve organ use and could have an impact on patient survival, but remains an elusive goal. Traditional multivariate models have failed to attain the sensitivity and specificity required for practical clinical use. Alternate approaches that can help us model clinical phenomena must be explored. One such approach is the use of artificial neural networks, or connectionist models. These are computation systems that process information in parallel, using large numbers of simple units, and excel in tasks involving pattern recognition. They are capable of adaptive learning and self-organization, and exhibit a high degree of fault tolerance.
METHODS: Ten feed-forward, back-propagation neural networks were trained to predict graft outcomes, using data from 155 adult liver transplants. The data included information that was available by the second postoperative day. Ten separate training and testing data subsets were prepared, using random sampling, and the ability of the different networks to predict outcomes successfully was evaluated using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis.
RESULTS: Four of the networks showed perfect discrimination, with an area under the ROC curve (Az) of 1.0. Two other networks also had excellent performance, with an Az of 0.95. The sensitivity and specificity of the combined networks was 60% and 100%, respectively, when using an output neuron activation of 0.6 as the cutoff point to decide class membership. Lowering the cutoff point to 0.14 increased the sensitivity to 77%, and lowered the specificity to 96%.
CONCLUSIONS: These results are encouraging, especially when compared to the performance of more traditional multivariate models on the same data set. The robustness of neural networks, when confronted with noisy data generated by nonlinear processes, and their freedom from a priori assumptions regarding the data, make them promising tools with which to develop predictive clinical models.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1994        PMID: 8161267      PMCID: PMC1243158          DOI: 10.1097/00000658-199404000-00012

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Surg        ISSN: 0003-4932            Impact factor:   12.969


  16 in total

1.  The perceptron: a probabilistic model for information storage and organization in the brain.

Authors:  F ROSENBLATT
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  1958-11       Impact factor: 8.934

2.  Neural network analysis of serial cardiac enzyme data. A clinical application of artificial machine intelligence.

Authors:  J W Furlong; M E Dupuy; J A Heinsimer
Journal:  Am J Clin Pathol       Date:  1991-07       Impact factor: 2.493

3.  Use of neural network analysis to classify electroencephalographic patterns against depth of midazolam sedation in intensive care unit patients.

Authors:  R A Veselis; R Reinsel; S Sommer; G Carlon
Journal:  J Clin Monit       Date:  1991-07

Review 4.  Review of neural network applications in medical imaging and signal processing.

Authors:  A S Miller; B H Blott; T K Hames
Journal:  Med Biol Eng Comput       Date:  1992-09       Impact factor: 2.602

5.  Classification of electrocardiographic ST-T segments--human expert vs artificial neural network.

Authors:  L Edenbrandt; B Devine; P W Macfarlane
Journal:  Eur Heart J       Date:  1993-04       Impact factor: 29.983

6.  Artificial neural networks in mammography: application to decision making in the diagnosis of breast cancer.

Authors:  Y Wu; M L Giger; K Doi; C J Vyborny; R A Schmidt; C E Metz
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1993-04       Impact factor: 11.105

7.  An economic analysis of liver transplantation. Costs, insurance coverage, and reimbursement.

Authors:  R W Evans; D L Manninen; F B Dong
Journal:  Gastroenterol Clin North Am       Date:  1993-06       Impact factor: 3.806

8.  Neural networks and physical systems with emergent collective computational abilities.

Authors:  J J Hopfield
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  1982-04       Impact factor: 11.205

9.  Artificial neural networks for predicting failure to survive following in-hospital cardiopulmonary resuscitation.

Authors:  M H Ebell
Journal:  J Fam Pract       Date:  1993-03       Impact factor: 0.493

10.  A practical application of neural network analysis for predicting outcome of individual breast cancer patients.

Authors:  P M Ravdin; G M Clark
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  1992       Impact factor: 4.872

View more
  11 in total

1.  Artificial neural networks: useful aid in diagnosing acute appendicitis.

Authors:  S G Prabhudesai; S Gould; S Rekhraj; P P Tekkis; G Glazer; P Ziprin
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2008-02       Impact factor: 3.352

Review 2.  The backpropagation neural network--a Bayesian classifier. Introduction and applicability to pharmacokinetics.

Authors:  R J Erb
Journal:  Clin Pharmacokinet       Date:  1995-08       Impact factor: 6.447

3.  Major complications after angioplasty in patients with chronic renal failure: a comparison of predictive models.

Authors:  R C Lacson; L Ohno-Machado
Journal:  Proc AMIA Symp       Date:  2000

4.  Enhancing the fever workup utilizing a multi-technique modeling approach to diagnose infections more accurately.

Authors:  Adam M A Fadlalla; Joseph F Golob; Jeffrey A Claridge
Journal:  Surg Infect (Larchmt)       Date:  2010-07-28       Impact factor: 2.150

5.  Assessing the effect of quantitative and qualitative predictors on gastric cancer individuals survival using hierarchical artificial neural network models.

Authors:  Zohreh Amiri; Kazem Mohammad; Mahmood Mahmoudi; Mahbubeh Parsaeian; Hojjat Zeraati
Journal:  Iran Red Crescent Med J       Date:  2013-01-05       Impact factor: 0.611

6.  Hepatic Retransplantation--an analysis of risk factors associated with outcome.

Authors:  H R Doyle; F Morelli; J McMichael; C Doria; L Aldrighetti; T E Starzl; I R Marino
Journal:  Transplantation       Date:  1996-05-27       Impact factor: 4.939

7.  Pretransplant model to predict posttransplant survival in liver transplant patients.

Authors:  Rafik M Ghobrial; Jeffery Gornbein; Randy Steadman; Natale Danino; James F Markmann; Curtis Holt; Dean Anselmo; Farin Amersi; Pauline Chen; Douglas G Farmer; Steve Han; Francisco Derazo; Sammy Saab; Leonard I Goldstein; Sue V McDiarmid; Ronald W Busuttil
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2002-09       Impact factor: 12.969

8.  The liver transplant risk score prognosticates the outcomes of liver transplant recipients at listing.

Authors:  Christof Kaltenmeier; Dana Jorgensen; Stalin Dharmayan; Subhashini Ayloo; Vikrant Rachakonda; David A Geller; Samer Tohme; Michele Molinari
Journal:  HPB (Oxford)       Date:  2020-11-11       Impact factor: 3.647

9.  Artificial neural networks as prediction tools in the critically ill.

Authors:  Gilles Clermont
Journal:  Crit Care       Date:  2005-03-03       Impact factor: 9.097

10.  Preoperative Stratification of Liver Transplant Recipients: Validation of the LTRS.

Authors:  Michele Molinari; Dana Jorgensen; Subhashini Ayloo; Stalin Dharmayan; Christof Kaltenmeier; Rajil B Mehta; Naudia Jonassaint
Journal:  Transplantation       Date:  2020-12       Impact factor: 5.385

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.