4.7 Review

Comparison of machine learning and logistic regression models in predicting acute kidney injury: A systematic review and meta-analysis

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2021.104484

关键词

Acute kidney injury; Machine learning; Artificial intelligence; Logistic regression

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found that machine learning models perform similarly to logistic regression models in predicting acute kidney injury (AKI), but some machine learning models show exceptional performance, with gradient boosting models performing the best.
Introduction: We aimed to assess whether machine learning models are superior at predicting acute kidney injury (AKI) compared to logistic regression (LR), a conventional prediction model. Methods: Eligible studies were identified using PubMed and Embase. A total of 24 studies consisting of 84 prediction models met inclusion criteria. Independent samples t-test was performed to detect mean differences in area under the curve (AUC) between ML and LR models. One-way ANOVA and post-hoc t-tests were performed to assess mean differences in AUC between ML methods. Results: AUC data were similar between ML (0.736 +/- 0.116) and LR (0.748 +/- 0.057) models (p = 0.538). However, specific ML models, such as gradient boosting (0.838 +/- 0.077), exhibited superior performance at predicting AKI as compared to other ML models in the literature (p < 0.05). Creatinine and urine output, standard variables assessed for AKI staging, were classified as significant predictors across multiple ML models, although the majority of significant predictors were unique and study specific. Conclusions: These data suggest that ML models perform equally to that of LR, however ML models exhibit variable performance with some ML models displaying exceptional performance. The variability in ML prediction of AKI can be attributed, in part, to the specific ML model utilized, variable selection and processing, study and subject characteristics, and the steps associated with model training, validation, testing, and calibration.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据