Accept/decline decision module for the liver simulated allocation model

Simulated allocation models (SAMs) are used to evaluate organ allocation policies. An important component of SAMs is a module that decides whether each potential recipient will accept an offered organ. The objective of this study was to develop and test accept-or-decline classifiers based on several machine-learning methods in an effort to improve the SAM for liver allocation. Feature selection and imbalance correction methods were tested and best approaches identified for application to organ transplant data. Then, we used 2011 liver match-run data to compare classifiers based on logistic regression, support vector machines, boosting, classification and regression trees, and Random Forests. Finally, because the accept-or-decline module will be embedded in a simulation model, we also developed an evaluation tool for comparing performance of predictors, which we call sample-path accuracy. The Random Forest method resulted in the smallest overall error rate, and boosting techniques had greater accuracy when both sensitivity and specificity were simultaneously considered important. Our comparisons show that no method dominates all others on all performance measures of interest. A logistic regression-based classifier is easy to implement and allows for pinpointing the contribution of each feature toward the probability of acceptance. Other methods we tested did not have a similar interpretation. The Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients decided to use the logistic regression-based accept-decline decision module in the next generation of liver SAM.

[1]  A. Alan B. Pritsker,et al.  Using simulation to craft a national organ transplantation policy , 1996, Winter Simulation Conference.

[2]  Uri Yechiali,et al.  A Time-dependent Stopping Problem with Application to Live Organ Transplants , 1985, Oper. Res..

[3]  Nitesh V. Chawla,et al.  SMOTE: Synthetic Minority Over-sampling Technique , 2002, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

[4]  Nasser M. Nasrabadi,et al.  Pattern Recognition and Machine Learning , 2006, Technometrics.

[5]  Huan Liu,et al.  Feature Selection for High-Dimensional Data: A Fast Correlation-Based Filter Solution , 2003, ICML.

[6]  Robert M Merion,et al.  Simulating the Allocation of Organs for Transplantation , 2004, Health care management science.

[7]  Andrew J. Schaefer,et al.  Estimating the Patient's Price of Privacy in Liver Transplantation , 2008, Oper. Res..

[8]  Tillal Eldabi,et al.  A Simulation Modelling Approach to Evaluating Alternative Policies for the Management of the Waiting List for Liver Transplantation , 2001, Health care management science.

[9]  Sarah E. Taranto,et al.  An update on a successful simulation project: the UNOS Liver Allocation Model , 2000, Winter simulation conference : proceedings.

[10]  Xuanming Su,et al.  Patient Choice in Kidney Allocation: A Sequential Stochastic Assignment Model , 2005, Oper. Res..

[11]  Oguzhan Alagoz,et al.  A Clinically Based Discrete-Event Simulation of End-Stage Liver Disease and the Organ Allocation Process , 2005, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[12]  Nello Cristianini,et al.  Controlling the Sensitivity of Support Vector Machines , 1999 .

[13]  Colin Campbell,et al.  Learning with Support Vector Machines , 2011, Learning with Support Vector Machines.

[14]  I. Tomek,et al.  Two Modifications of CNN , 1976 .

[15]  Larry A. Rendell,et al.  A Practical Approach to Feature Selection , 1992, ML.

[16]  Andrew J. Schaefer,et al.  Alleviating the Patient’S Price of Privacy Through a Partially Observable Waiting List , 2013 .

[17]  S. Wold,et al.  PLS-regression: a basic tool of chemometrics , 2001 .

[18]  Yanqing Zhang,et al.  SVMs Modeling for Highly Imbalanced Classification , 2009, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part B (Cybernetics).

[19]  A. Israni,et al.  Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients: collecting, analyzing, and reporting data on transplantation in the United States. , 2013, Transplantation reviews.

[20]  John Hornberger,et al.  Involving Patients in the Cadaveric Kidney Transplant Allocation Process: A Decision-Theoretic Perspective , 1996 .

[21]  Thomas M. Cover,et al.  Elements of Information Theory , 2005 .

[22]  I. Jolliffe A Note on the Use of Principal Components in Regression , 1982 .

[23]  Yoav Freund,et al.  Boosting: Foundations and Algorithms , 2012 .

[24]  Michael H. Kutner Applied Linear Statistical Models , 1974 .

[25]  Leo Breiman,et al.  Random Forests , 2001, Machine Learning.

[26]  David G. Stork,et al.  Pattern Classification , 1973 .

[27]  Andrew J. Schaefer,et al.  Determining the Acceptance of Cadaveric Livers Using an Implicit Model of the Waiting List , 2007, Oper. Res..

[28]  D. Howard,et al.  Why do transplant surgeons turn down organs? A model of the accept/reject decision. , 2002, Journal of health economics.

[29]  Andrew J. Schaefer,et al.  Incorporating biology into discrete event simulation models of organ allocation , 2002, Proceedings of the Winter Simulation Conference.

[30]  Stan Matwin,et al.  Addressing the Curse of Imbalanced Training Sets: One-Sided Selection , 1997, ICML.

[31]  Tony R. Martinez,et al.  Improved Heterogeneous Distance Functions , 1996, J. Artif. Intell. Res..

[32]  Huan Liu,et al.  Advancing feature selection research , 2010 .

[33]  Xuanming Su,et al.  Incorporating recipient choice in kidney transplantation. , 2004, Journal of the American Society of Nephrology : JASN.

[34]  Cynthia Rudin,et al.  ORC: Ordered Rules for ClassificationA Discrete Optimization Approach to Associative Classification , 2012 .