We have located links that may give you full text access.
LightGBM outperforms other machine learning techniques in predicting graft failure after liver transplantation: Creation of a predictive model through large-scale analysis.
Clinical Transplantation 2024 April
BACKGROUND: The incidence of graft failure following liver transplantation (LTx) is consistent. While traditional risk scores for LTx have limited accuracy, the potential of machine learning (ML) in this area remains uncertain, despite its promise in other transplant domains. This study aims to determine ML's predictive limitations in LTx by replicating methods used in previous heart transplant research.
METHODS: This study utilized the UNOS STAR database, selecting 64,384 adult patients who underwent LTx between 2010 and 2020. Gradient boosting models (XGBoost and LightGBM) were used to predict 14, 30, and 90-day graft failure compared to conventional logistic regression model. Models were evaluated using both shuffled and rolling cross-validation (CV) methodologies. Model performance was assessed using the AUC across validation iterations.
RESULTS: In a study comparing predictive models for 14-day, 30-day and 90-day graft survival, LightGBM consistently outperformed other models, achieving the highest AUC of.740,.722, and.700 in shuffled CV methods. However, in rolling CV the accuracy of the model declined across every ML algorithm. The analysis revealed influential factors for graft survival prediction across all models, including total bilirubin, medical condition, recipient age, and donor AST, among others. Several features like donor age and recipient diabetes history were important in two out of three models.
CONCLUSIONS: LightGBM enhances short-term graft survival predictions post-LTx. However, due to changing medical practices and selection criteria, continuous model evaluation is essential. Future studies should focus on temporal variations, clinical implications, and ensure model transparency for broader medical utility.
METHODS: This study utilized the UNOS STAR database, selecting 64,384 adult patients who underwent LTx between 2010 and 2020. Gradient boosting models (XGBoost and LightGBM) were used to predict 14, 30, and 90-day graft failure compared to conventional logistic regression model. Models were evaluated using both shuffled and rolling cross-validation (CV) methodologies. Model performance was assessed using the AUC across validation iterations.
RESULTS: In a study comparing predictive models for 14-day, 30-day and 90-day graft survival, LightGBM consistently outperformed other models, achieving the highest AUC of.740,.722, and.700 in shuffled CV methods. However, in rolling CV the accuracy of the model declined across every ML algorithm. The analysis revealed influential factors for graft survival prediction across all models, including total bilirubin, medical condition, recipient age, and donor AST, among others. Several features like donor age and recipient diabetes history were important in two out of three models.
CONCLUSIONS: LightGBM enhances short-term graft survival predictions post-LTx. However, due to changing medical practices and selection criteria, continuous model evaluation is essential. Future studies should focus on temporal variations, clinical implications, and ensure model transparency for broader medical utility.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Treatment of hyponatremia: comprehension and best clinical practice.Clinical and Experimental Nephrology 2025 January 23
How We Treat ANCA-Associated Vasculitis: A Focus on the Maintenance Therapy.Journal of Clinical Medicine 2025 January 2
Allergic rhinitis.Allergy, Asthma, and Clinical Immunology 2024 December 27
Insomnia in older adults: A review of treatment options.Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine 2025 January 2
Aldosterone and Potassium in Heart Failure: Overcoming This Major Impediment in Clinical Practice.Cardiac Failure Review 2024
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2025 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app