A Neural Network Model for Predicting Pancreas Transplant Graft Outcome

OBJECTIVE To compare the results of a neural network versus a logistic regression model for predicting early (0–3 months) pancreas transplant graft survival or loss. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS This study was a cross-sectional, secondary analysis of demographic and clinical data from 117 simultaneous pancreas-kidney (SPK), 35 pancreas-after-kidney (PAK), and 8 pancreas-transplant-alone (PTA) patients (n = 160). The majority of patients were men (57%) and were white (90.1%), with a mean age of 39 ± 8.09 years. Of the patients, 23 (14.4%) experienced early graft loss, which included any loss owing to technical or immunological causes, and death with a functional graft. Data were analyzed with a logistic regression model for multivariate analysis and a backpropagation neural network (BPNN) model. RESULTS A total of 12 predictor variables were chosen from literature and transplant surgeon recommendations. A logistic model with all predictor variables included correctly classified 93.53% of cases. Model sensitivity was 35.71%; specificity was 100% (pseudo-R2 0.24). Of the predictors, history of alcohol abuse (odds ratio [OR] 32.39; 95% CI 1.67–626.89), having a PAK or PTA (OR 13.6; 95% CI 2.20–84.01), and use of a nonlocal organ procurement center (OPO) (OR 4.51; 95% CI 0.78–25.96) were most closely associated with early graft loss. The BPNN model with the same 12 predictor variables correctly predicted 92.50% of cases (R2 0.71). Model sensitivity was 68%; specificity was 96%. Of the predictors, the three variables most closely associated with graft outcome in this model were recipient/donor weight difference >50 lb, having a PAK or PTA, and use of a nonlocal OPO. CONCLUSIONS First, the BPNN model correctly predicted 92.5% of graft outcomes versus the logistic model (93.53%). Second, the BPNN model rendered more accurate predictions (>0.70 = loss; <0.30 = survival) versus the logistic model (>0.50 = loss; <0.50 = survival). Third, the BPNN model was more sensitive (68%) than the logistic model (35.71%) to graft failures and demonstrated an almost threefold increase in explained variance (R2 = 0.71 vs. 0.24). These results suggest that the BPNN model is a more powerful tool for predicting early pancreas graft loss than traditional multivariate statistical models.

[1]  G. Klintmalm,et al.  Influence of donor and recipient gender on the outcome of liver transplantation. , 1996, Transplantation proceedings.

[2]  G. Klintmalm,et al.  Influence of donor and recipient gender on the outcome of liver transplantation. , 1997, Transplantation.

[3]  Vasant Dhar,et al.  Seven Methods for Transforming Corporate Data Into Business Intelligence , 1996 .

[4]  R. Stratta,et al.  Pancreas transplantation: a managed cure approach to diabetes. , 1996, Current problems in surgery.

[5]  P. Kuo,et al.  Long-term pancreatic function: potential benefits. , 1996, Transplantation proceedings.

[6]  D. Sutherland,et al.  Long-term peritoneal dialysis before transplantation and intra-abdominal infection after simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplantations. , 1996, Archives of surgery.

[7]  S. Mizrahi,et al.  Success and complications of pancreatic transplantation at one institution. , 1996, Annals of surgery.

[8]  A. Gaber,et al.  Identification of quality-of-life outcomes distinguishing diabetic kidney-alone and pancreas-kidney recipients. , 1995, Transplantation proceedings.

[9]  S. Kim,et al.  Risk factors of long-term survivals in combined kidney/pancreas transplantation: a multivariate analysis of 259 recipients. , 1995, Transplantation proceedings.

[10]  J. Fish,et al.  Multivariate analysis of donor and recipient risk factors for renal and pancreas allograft failure after pancreas-kidney transplantation. , 1995, Transplantation proceedings.

[11]  R. Stratta,et al.  Is there a transfusion effect in combined pancreas-kidney transplantation? , 1995, Transplantation proceedings.

[12]  Edward C. Uberbacher,et al.  Use of neural networks for prediction of graft failure following liver transplantation , 1995, Proceedings Eighth IEEE Symposium on Computer-Based Medical Systems.

[13]  Bruce W. Colletti,et al.  Artificial intelligence versus logistic regression statistical modelling to predict cardiac complications after noncardiac surgery , 1994, Clinical Cardiology.

[14]  J Grigsby,et al.  Simulated neural networks to predict outcomes, costs, and length of stay among orthopedic rehabilitation patients. , 1994, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[15]  D. Dunn,et al.  RECIPIENT RISK FACTORS HAVE AN IMPACT ON TECHNICAL FAILURE AND PATIENT AND GRAFT SURVIVAL RATES IN BLADDER‐DRAINED PANCREAS TRANSPLANTS , 1994, Transplantation.

[16]  S Mitchell,et al.  Predicting Outcomes After Liver Transplantation A Connectionist Approach , 1994, Annals of surgery.

[17]  K. Mehrotra,et al.  Prediction criteria for successful weaning from respiratory support: Statistical and connectionist analyses , 1992, Critical care medicine.

[18]  W. Baxt Use of an artificial neural network for the diagnosis of myocardial infarction. , 1991, Annals of internal medicine.