Comparison and use of explainable machine learning-based survival models for heart failure patients.

IF 2.9 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
DIGITAL HEALTH Pub Date : 2024-08-25 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.1177/20552076241277027
Tao Shi, Jianping Yang, Ningli Zhang, Wei Rong, Lusha Gao, Ping Xia, Jie Zou, Na Zhu, Fazhi Yang, Lixing Chen
{"title":"Comparison and use of explainable machine learning-based survival models for heart failure patients.","authors":"Tao Shi, Jianping Yang, Ningli Zhang, Wei Rong, Lusha Gao, Ping Xia, Jie Zou, Na Zhu, Fazhi Yang, Lixing Chen","doi":"10.1177/20552076241277027","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Explainable machine learning (XAI) was introduced in this study to improve the interpretability, explainability and transparency of the modelling results. The survex package in R was used to interpret and compare two survival models - the Cox proportional hazards regression (coxph) model and the random survival forest (rfsrc) model - and to estimate overall survival (OS) and its determinants in heart failure (HF) patients using these models.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We selected 1159 HF patients hospitalised at the First Affiliated Hospital of Kunming Medical University. First, the performance of the two models was investigated using the C-index, the integrated C/D AUC, and the integrated Brier score. Second, a global explanation of the whole cohort was carried out using the time-dependent variable importance and the partial dependence survival profile. Finally, the SurvSHAP(t) and SurvLIME plots and the ceteris paribus survival profile were used to obtain a local explanation for each patient.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>By comparing the C-index, the C/D AUC, and the Brier score, this study showed that the model performance of rfsrc was better than coxph. The global explanation of the whole cohort suggests that the C-reactive protein, lg BNP (brain natriuretic peptide), estimated glomerular filtration rate, albumin, age and blood chloride were significant unfavourable predictors of OS in HF patients in both the cxoph and the rfsrc models. By including individual patients in the model, we can provide a local explanation for each patient, which guides the clinician in individualising the patient's treatment.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>By comparison, we conclude that the model performance of rfsrc is better than that of coxph. These two predictive models, which address not only the whole population but also selected patients, can help clinicians personalise the treatment of each HF patient according to his or her specific situation.</p>","PeriodicalId":51333,"journal":{"name":"DIGITAL HEALTH","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11348487/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"DIGITAL HEALTH","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20552076241277027","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Explainable machine learning (XAI) was introduced in this study to improve the interpretability, explainability and transparency of the modelling results. The survex package in R was used to interpret and compare two survival models - the Cox proportional hazards regression (coxph) model and the random survival forest (rfsrc) model - and to estimate overall survival (OS) and its determinants in heart failure (HF) patients using these models.

Methods: We selected 1159 HF patients hospitalised at the First Affiliated Hospital of Kunming Medical University. First, the performance of the two models was investigated using the C-index, the integrated C/D AUC, and the integrated Brier score. Second, a global explanation of the whole cohort was carried out using the time-dependent variable importance and the partial dependence survival profile. Finally, the SurvSHAP(t) and SurvLIME plots and the ceteris paribus survival profile were used to obtain a local explanation for each patient.

Results: By comparing the C-index, the C/D AUC, and the Brier score, this study showed that the model performance of rfsrc was better than coxph. The global explanation of the whole cohort suggests that the C-reactive protein, lg BNP (brain natriuretic peptide), estimated glomerular filtration rate, albumin, age and blood chloride were significant unfavourable predictors of OS in HF patients in both the cxoph and the rfsrc models. By including individual patients in the model, we can provide a local explanation for each patient, which guides the clinician in individualising the patient's treatment.

Conclusion: By comparison, we conclude that the model performance of rfsrc is better than that of coxph. These two predictive models, which address not only the whole population but also selected patients, can help clinicians personalise the treatment of each HF patient according to his or her specific situation.

基于可解释机器学习的心力衰竭患者生存模型的比较和使用。
目的:本研究引入了可解释机器学习(XAI),以提高建模结果的可解释性、可解释性和透明度。研究使用 R 中的 survex 软件包来解释和比较两种生存模型--Cox 比例危险回归模型(coxph)和随机生存森林模型(rfsrc)--并使用这些模型估计心力衰竭(HF)患者的总生存期(OS)及其决定因素:我们选取了昆明医科大学第一附属医院住院的1159名心衰患者。首先,使用 C 指数、综合 C/D AUC 和综合 Brier 评分对两个模型的性能进行了研究。其次,利用随时间变化的变量重要性和部分依赖生存曲线对整个队列进行了全局解释。最后,利用 SurvSHAP(t) 和 SurvLIME 图以及比差生存曲线对每位患者进行局部解释:通过比较 C 指数、C/D AUC 和 Brier 评分,该研究表明 rfsrc 的模型性能优于 coxph。对整个队列的总体解释表明,在 cxoph 和 rfsrc 模型中,C 反应蛋白、lg BNP(脑钠肽)、估计肾小球滤过率、白蛋白、年龄和血氯化物都是对 HF 患者 OS 明显不利的预测因子。通过将个体患者纳入模型,我们可以为每个患者提供局部解释,从而指导临床医生对患者进行个体化治疗:通过比较,我们得出结论:rfsrc 的模型性能优于 coxph。这两个预测模型不仅针对整个人群,也针对选定的患者,可以帮助临床医生根据每位高频患者的具体情况对其进行个性化治疗。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
DIGITAL HEALTH
DIGITAL HEALTH Multiple-
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
7.70%
发文量
302
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信