Predicting Early Transplant Failure: Neural Network Versus Logistic Regression Models

V. Ibañez, E. Pareja, A. Serrano, V. Jj, Santiago Pérez, José D. Martín, F. Sanjuán, R. López, J. Mir
{"title":"Predicting Early Transplant Failure: Neural Network Versus Logistic Regression Models","authors":"V. Ibañez, E. Pareja, A. Serrano, V. Jj, Santiago Pérez, José D. Martín, F. Sanjuán, R. López, J. Mir","doi":"10.2174/1874418400903010014","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Cox's proportional hazard model or logistic regression model has been the classical mathematical approach to predict transplant results, but artificial neural networks may offer better results. In order to compare both methods, a logis- tic regression and a neural network model were generated to predict early transplant failure assessed at 90 days. Methods: Medical charts from 701 liver transplant patients were used as generation cohort, collecting variables from do- nor, recipient and operative data. The discrimination capacity of the models was measured through the area under their ROC curves. Models were validated by applying them to a second cohort of 170 patients (validation cohort), although af- terwards it was enlarged to 246 patients in order to increase statistical power. Results: For the generation sample, ROC curves were 75% for logistic regression and 96% for neural network (� 2 = 44,60. p<0,00001). Applied to the whole validation sample these values dropped to 68.7 % for logistic regression and 69.9 % for neural network (� 2 = 0.026. p: 0,87). However, when models where applied to the validation cohort in cumulative groups of 50 patients two aspects became evident: 1) predictions worsened for patients who were more distant in time from the generation cohort; 2) for the first hundred patients in validation cohort, neural network was clearly superior to logistic re- gression model (93 % vs 76 %; � 2 = 10.52. p:0,001). Conclusions: Our results suggest that, provided with the same information and for a limited period of time, neural net- works may offer better diagnostic performances than with logistic regression models.","PeriodicalId":90368,"journal":{"name":"The open transplantation journal","volume":"3 1","pages":"14-21"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2009-05-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The open transplantation journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2174/1874418400903010014","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

Cox's proportional hazard model or logistic regression model has been the classical mathematical approach to predict transplant results, but artificial neural networks may offer better results. In order to compare both methods, a logis- tic regression and a neural network model were generated to predict early transplant failure assessed at 90 days. Methods: Medical charts from 701 liver transplant patients were used as generation cohort, collecting variables from do- nor, recipient and operative data. The discrimination capacity of the models was measured through the area under their ROC curves. Models were validated by applying them to a second cohort of 170 patients (validation cohort), although af- terwards it was enlarged to 246 patients in order to increase statistical power. Results: For the generation sample, ROC curves were 75% for logistic regression and 96% for neural network (� 2 = 44,60. p<0,00001). Applied to the whole validation sample these values dropped to 68.7 % for logistic regression and 69.9 % for neural network (� 2 = 0.026. p: 0,87). However, when models where applied to the validation cohort in cumulative groups of 50 patients two aspects became evident: 1) predictions worsened for patients who were more distant in time from the generation cohort; 2) for the first hundred patients in validation cohort, neural network was clearly superior to logistic re- gression model (93 % vs 76 %; � 2 = 10.52. p:0,001). Conclusions: Our results suggest that, provided with the same information and for a limited period of time, neural net- works may offer better diagnostic performances than with logistic regression models.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
预测早期移植失败:神经网络与逻辑回归模型
Cox比例风险模型或逻辑回归模型一直是预测移植结果的经典数学方法,但人工神经网络可能提供更好的结果。为了比较这两种方法,我们使用逻辑回归和神经网络模型来预测90天的早期移植失败。方法:采用701例肝移植患者的病历作为世代队列,收集未行肝移植、接受肝移植和手术数据的变量。模型的判别能力通过其ROC曲线下的面积来衡量。通过将模型应用于第二组170例患者(验证组)来验证模型,尽管后来将其扩大到246例患者,以增加统计效力。结果:对生成样本,逻辑回归的ROC曲线为75%,神经网络的ROC曲线为96% (χ 2 = 44,60)。p < 0, 00001)。应用于整个验证样本,逻辑回归的这些值降至68.7%,神经网络的这些值降至69.9%(2 = 0.026)。p: 0, 87)。然而,当将模型应用于50例患者累积组的验证队列时,两个方面变得明显:1)离代队列时间较远的患者的预测更差;2)对于验证队列的前100例患者,神经网络明显优于logistic回归模型(93% vs 76%;2 = 10.52。p: 0001)。结论:我们的研究结果表明,在提供相同的信息和有限的时间内,神经网络可能比逻辑回归模型提供更好的诊断性能。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Determinants of Quality of Life After Lung Transplantation First Demonstration of the Effects of Remote Per- and Postconditioning onIschemia and Reperfusion Induced Hepatic Injury Effect of Hepatic Steatosis on Bioenergetic Function During HepaticIschemia-reperfusion: A Systematic Review Transplant Recipients’ Experience of Participation at the World TransplantGames in Gothenburg 2011: A Study of Psychological Well-being Sequential Liver Chemistry Profiling and Abdominal Ultrasound Assessments to Predict Biliary Strictures after Liver Transplantation
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1