Evidence mapPaperPMID 36211563Full record

ArticleFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2022

Prediction model of acute kidney injury after different types of acute aortic dissection based on machine learning.

Li Xinsai, Wang Zhengye, Huang Xuan, Chu Xueqian, Peng Kai, Chen Sisi, Jiang Xuyan, Li Suhua

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Observational
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Li XinsaiKidney Disease Center of the First Affiliated Hospital of Xinjiang Medical University, Urumqi, China.
Wang ZhengyeSchool of Public Health, Xinjiang Medical University, Urumqi, China.
Huang XuanKidney Disease Center of the First Affiliated Hospital of Xinjiang Medical University, Urumqi, China.
Chu XueqianKidney Disease Center of the First Affiliated Hospital of Xinjiang Medical University, Urumqi, China.
Peng KaiSchool of Public Health, Xinjiang Medical University, Urumqi, China.
Chen SisiKidney Disease Center of the First Affiliated Hospital of Xinjiang Medical University, Urumqi, China.
Jiang XuyanKidney Disease Center of the First Affiliated Hospital of Xinjiang Medical University, Urumqi, China.
Li SuhuaKidney Disease Center of the First Affiliated Hospital of Xinjiang Medical University, Urumqi, China.
Xinjiang Medical University · CNFirst Affiliated Hospital of Xinjiang Medical University · CNNational Clinical Research Center for Digestive Diseases · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: A clinical prediction model for postoperative combined Acute kidney injury (AKI) in patients with Type A acute aortic dissection (TAAAD) and Type B acute aortic dissection (TBAAD) was constructed by using Machine Learning (ML). Methods: Baseline data was collected from Acute aortic division (AAD) patients admitted to First Affiliated Hospital of Xinjiang Medical University between January 1, 2019 and December 31, 2021. (1) We identified baseline Serum creatinine (SCR) estimation methods and used them as a basis for diagnosis of AKI. (2) Divide their total datasets randomly into Training set (70%) and Test set (30%), Bootstrap modeling and validation of features using multiple ML methods in the training set, and select models corresponding to the largest Area Under Curve (AUC) for follow-up studies. (3) Screening of the best ML model variables through the model visualization tools Shapley Addictive Explanations (SHAP) and Recursive feature reduction (REF). (4) Finally, the pre-screened prediction models were evaluated using test set data from three aspects: discrimination, Calibration, and clinical benefit. Results: The final incidence of AKI was 69.4% (120/173) in 173 patients with TAAAD and 28.6% (81/283) in 283 patients with TBAAD. For TAAAD-AKI, the Random Forest (RF) model showed the best prediction performance in the training set (AUC = 0.760, 95% CI:0.630-0.881); while for TBAAD-AKI, the Light Gradient Boosting Machine (LightGBM) model worked best (AUC = 0.734, 95% CI:0.623-0.847). Screening of the characteristic variables revealed that the common predictors among the two final prediction models for postoperative AKI due to AAD were baseline SCR, Blood urea nitrogen (BUN) and Uric acid (UA) at admission, Mechanical ventilation time (MVT). The specific predictors in the TAAAD-AKI model are: White blood cell (WBC), Platelet (PLT) and D dimer at admission, Plasma The specific predictors in the TBAAD-AKI model were N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP), Serum kalium, Activated partial thromboplastin time (APTT) and Systolic blood pressure (SBP) at admission, Combined renal arteriography in surgery. Finally, we used in terms of Discrimination, the ROC value of the RF model for TAAAD was 0.81 and the ROC value of the LightGBM model for TBAAD was 0.74, both with good accuracy. In terms of calibration, the calibration curve of TAAAD-AKI's RF fits the ideal curve the best and has the lowest and smallest Brier score (0.16). Similarly, the calibration curve of TBAAD-AKI's LightGBM model fits the ideal curve the best and has the smallest Brier score (0.15). In terms of Clinical benefit, the best ML models for both types of AAD have good Net benefit as shown by Decision Curve Analysis (DCA). Conclusion: We successfully constructed and validated clinical prediction models for the occurrence of AKI after surgery in TAAAD and TBAAD patients using different ML algorithms. The main predictors of the two types of AAD-AKI are somewhat different, and the strategies for early prevention and control of AKI are also different and need more external data for validation.

Indexed as

acute aortic dissectionacute renal injurymachine learningprediction modelType A acute aortic dissectionType B acute aortic dissection

Identifiers

PMID36211563
PMCPMC9535339
OpenAlexW4296632360

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.