Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38993480›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in genetics2024

Development and evaluation of a chronic kidney disease risk prediction model using random forest.

Krish Mendapara

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in genetics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

1 author.

Krish MendaparaFaculty of Health Sciences, Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This research aims to advance the detection of Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD) through a novel gene-based predictive model, leveraging recent breakthroughs in gene sequencing. We sourced and merged gene expression profiles of CKD-affected renal tissues from the Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO) database, classifying them into two sets for training and validation in a 7:3 ratio. The training set included 141 CKD and 33 non-CKD specimens, while the validation set had 60 and 14, respectively. The disease risk prediction model was constructed using the training dataset, while the validation dataset confirmed the model's identification capabilities. The development of our predictive model began with evaluating differentially expressed genes (DEGs) between the two groups. We isolated six genes using Lasso and random forest (RF) methods-DUSP1, GADD45B, IFI44L, IFI30, ATF3, and LYZ-which are critical in differentiating CKD from non-CKD tissues. We refined our random forest (RF) model through 10-fold cross-validation, repeated five times, to optimize the mtry parameter. The performance of our model was robust, with an average AUC of 0.979 across the folds, translating to a 91.18% accuracy. Validation tests further confirmed its efficacy, with a 94.59% accuracy and an AUC of 0.990. External validation using dataset GSE180394 yielded an AUC of 0.913, 89.83% accuracy, and a sensitivity rate of 0.889, underscoring the model's reliability. In summary, the study identified critical genetic biomarkers and successfully developed a novel disease risk prediction model for CKD. This model can serve as a valuable tool for CKD disease risk assessment and contribute significantly to CKD identification.

Indexed as

biomarkerschronic kidney diseaseCKDcomputational genomics and proteomicsdifferentially expressed genes (DEGs)disease risk prediction algorithmrandom forest.

Identifiers

PMID38993480
PMCPMC11236722

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.