Submitted:
02 August 2024
Posted:
02 August 2024
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Data Sources
2.2. Statistical Analysis
2.3. Mendelian Randomization Analysis
2.3.1. Data Sources
2.3.2. Instrumental Variables
2.3.3. Hypotheses
2.3.4. Data Analysis
2.4. Construction of Machine Learning Model
2.5. Evaluation of Machine Learning Models
2.6. Creation of Interactive Web Interface
3. Results
3.1. Baseline Characteristics
3.2. Logistic Regression Analysis of Hearing Indicators
3.3. Correlation Analysis
3.4. Mendelian Randomization Analysis
3.5. Machine Learning model Construction
3.6. Machine Learning Model Comparison and Evaluation
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
6. Patents
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Chen, T.K.; Hoenig, M.P.; Nitsch, D.; E Grams, M. Advances in the management of chronic kidney disease. BMJ 2023, 383, e074216. [CrossRef]
- Gansevoort, R.T.; Correa-Rotter, R.; Hemmelgarn, B.R.; Jafar, T.H.; Heerspink, H.J.L.; Mann, J.F.; Matsushita, K.; Wen, C.P. Chronic kidney disease and cardiovascular risk: epidemiology, mechanisms, and prevention. Lancet 2013, 382, 339–352. [CrossRef]
- Gargiulo, R.; Suhail, F.; Lerma, E.V. Hypertension and Chronic Kidney Disease. Disease-a-Month 2015, 61, 387–395.
- Ling, J.; Ng, J.K.C.; Chan, J.C.N.; Chow, E. Use of Continuous Glucose Monitoring in the Assessment and Management of Patients With Diabetes and Chronic Kidney Disease. Front. Endocrinol. 2022, 13, 869899. [CrossRef]
- Kalantar-Zadeh, K.; Jafar, T.H.; Nitsch, D.; Neuen, B.L.; Perkovic, V. Chronic Kidney Disease. Lancet 2021, 398, 786–802. [CrossRef]
- Li, J.; Xu, X.; Luo, J.; Chen, W.; Yang, M.; Wang, L.; Zhu, N.; Yuan, W.; Gu, L. Choosing an appropriate glomerular filtration rate estimating equation: role of body mass index. BMC Nephrol. 2021, 22, 1–12. [CrossRef]
- Liu, H.; Zhao, H.; Zheng, D.; He, W.; Liu, Y.; Jin, J.; He, Q.; Lin, B. Misdiagnosis of chronic kidney disease and parathyroid hormone testing during the past 16 years. Sci. Rep. 2023, 13, 1–7. [CrossRef]
- Boateng, J.O.; Boafo, N.; Osafo, C.; Anim-Sampong, S. Hearing impairment among chronic kidney disease patients on haemodialysis at a tertiary hospital in Ghana. Ghana Med J. 2019, 53, 197–203. [CrossRef]
- Kim, J.H.; Lee, D.-H.; Lee, B.; Lim, S.H.; Ahn, Y.H.; Kang, H.G.; Ha, I.-S.; Cheong, H.I. Renal Syndromic Hearing Loss Is Common in Childhood-onset Chronic Kidney Disease. J. Korean Med Sci. 2020, 35, e364. [CrossRef]
- Shim, Y.J.; Choi, H.G.; Wee, J.H. Association between Chronic Kidney Disease and Sudden Sensorineural Hearing Loss: A Longitudinal Follow-Up Studies Using ICD-10 Codes in a National Health Screening Cohort. J. Clin. Med. 2023, 12, 2861. [CrossRef]
- Wu, K.-L.; Shih, C.-P.; Chan, J.-S.; Chung, C.-H.; Lin, H.-C.; Tsao, C.-H.; Lin, F.-H.; Chien, W.-C.; Hsiao, P.-J. Investigation of the relationship between sensorineural hearing loss and associated comorbidities in patients with chronic kidney disease: A nationwide, population-based cohort study. PLOS ONE 2020, 15, e0238913. [CrossRef]
- Sarin, V.; Sharma, A.; Chopra, I. High Frequency Hearing Loss in Chronic Renal Disease: A Cross-Sectional Study. Indian J. Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg. 2021, 74, 4046–4052. [CrossRef]
- Agrawal, M.; Singh, C.V. Sensorineural Hearing Loss in Patients With Chronic Kidney Disease: A Comprehensive Review. Cureus 2023, 15, e48244. [CrossRef]
- Rysz, J.; Gluba-Brzózka, A.; Franczyk, B.; Jabłonowski, Z.; Ciałkowska-Rysz, A. Novel Biomarkers in the Diagnosis of Chronic Kidney Disease and the Prediction of Its Outcome. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2017, 18, 1702. [CrossRef]
- ICD-10-CM Diagnosis Code N28.89 - Other Specified Disorders of Kidney and Ureter Available online: https://icdlist.com/icd-10/N28.89#google_vignette (accessed on 8 April 2024).
- Titova, O.E.; Michaëlsson, K.; Larsson, S.C. Sleep Duration and Stroke: Prospective Cohort Study and Mendelian Randomization Analysis. Stroke 2020, 51, 3279–3285. [CrossRef]
- Davies, N.M.; Holmes, M.V.; Smith, G.D. Reading Mendelian randomisation studies: a guide, glossary, and checklist for clinicians. BMJ 2018, 362, k601. [CrossRef]
- Skrivankova, V.W.; Richmond, R.C.; Woolf, B.A.R.; Yarmolinsky, J.; Davies, N.M.; Swanson, S.A.; VanderWeele, T.J.; Higgins, J.P.T.; Timpson, N.J.; Dimou, N.; et al. Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology Using Mendelian Randomization: The STROBE-MR Statement. JAMA 2021, 326, 1614–1621. [CrossRef]
- Ravizza, S.; Huschto, T.; Adamov, A.; Böhm, L.; Büsser, A.; Flöther, F.F.; Hinzmann, R.; König, H.; McAhren, S.M.; Robertson, D.H.; et al. Predicting the early risk of chronic kidney disease in patients with diabetes using real-world data. Nat. Med. 2019, 25, 57–59. [CrossRef]
- Chen, J.; Li, Y.; Liu, P.; Wu, H.; Su, G. A nomogram to predict the in-hospital mortality of patients with congestive heart failure and chronic kidney disease. ESC Hear. Fail. 2022, 9, 3167–3176. [CrossRef]
- Su, D.; Zhang, X.; He, K.; Chen, Y.; Wu, N. Individualized prediction of chronic kidney disease for the elderly in longevity areas in China: Machine learning approaches. Front. Public Heal. 2022, 10, 998549. [CrossRef]
- Xiao, J.; Ding, R.; Xu, X.; Guan, H.; Feng, X.; Sun, T.; Zhu, S.; Ye, Z. Comparison and development of machine learning tools in the prediction of chronic kidney disease progression. J. Transl. Med. 2019, 17, 1–13. [CrossRef]
- Dong, Z.; Wang, Q.; Ke, Y.; Zhang, W.; Hong, Q.; Liu, C.; Liu, X.; Yang, J.; Xi, Y.; Shi, J.; et al. Prediction of 3-year risk of diabetic kidney disease using machine learning based on electronic medical records. J. Transl. Med. 2022, 20, 1–10. [CrossRef]
- National Center for Health Statistics. NHANES - About the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. [Accessed 2023 Dec 8].;
- The MRC IEU OpenGWAS Data Infrastructure. bioRxiv https://www.biorxiv.org/ content/10.1101/2020.08.10.244293v1 (accessed on 29 March 2024).
- Kalra, G.; Milon, B.; Casella, A.M.; Herb, B.R.; Humphries, E.; Song, Y.; Rose, K.P.; Hertzano, R.; Ament, S.A. Biological insights from multi-omic analysis of 31 genomic risk loci for adult hearing difficulty. PLOS Genet. 2020, 16, e1009025. [CrossRef]
- Gilly, A.; Park, Y.-C.; Png, G.; Barysenka, A.; Fischer, I.; Bjørnland, T.; Southam, L.; Suveges, D.; Neumeyer, S.; Rayner, N.W.; et al. Whole-genome sequencing analysis of the cardiometabolic proteome. Nat. Commun. 2020, 11, 1–9. [CrossRef]
- Coneys, R.; Storm, C.S.; Kia, D.A.; Almramhi, M.; Wood, N.W. Mendelian Randomisation Finds No Causal Association between Urate and Parkinson’s Disease Progression. Mov. Disord. 2021, 36, 2182–2187. [CrossRef]
- Burgess, S.; Butterworth, A.; Thompson, S.G. Mendelian Randomization Analysis With Multiple Genetic Variants Using Summarized Data. Genet. Epidemiol. 2013, 37, 658–665. [CrossRef]
- Bowden, J.; Davey Smith, G.; Burgess, S. Mendelian randomization with invalid instruments: effect estimation and bias detection through Egger regression. Int. J. Epidemiol. 2015, 44, 512–525. [CrossRef]
- Bowden, J.; Smith, G.D.; Haycock, P.C.; Burgess, S. Consistent Estimation in Mendelian Randomization with Some Invalid Instruments Using a Weighted Median Estimator. Genet. Epidemiology 2016, 40, 304–314. [CrossRef]
- Lawlor, D.A.; Harbord, R.M.; Sterne, J.A.C.; Timpson, N.; Smith, G.D. Mendelian randomization: Using genes as instruments for making causal inferences in epidemiology. Stat. Med. 2008, 27, 1133–1163. [CrossRef]
- Yavorska, O.O.; Burgess, S. MendelianRandomization: An R Package for Performing Mendelian Randomization Analyses Using Summarized Data. Int J Epidemiol 2017, 46, 1734–1739. [CrossRef]
- Burgess, S.; Thompson, S.G. Interpreting Findings from Mendelian Randomization Using the MR-Egger Method. Eur J Epidemiol 2017, 32, 377–389. [CrossRef]
- Verbanck, M.; Chen, C.-Y.; Neale, B.; Do, R. Detection of widespread horizontal pleiotropy in causal relationships inferred from Mendelian randomization between complex traits and diseases. Nat. Genet. 2018, 50, 693–698. [CrossRef]
- Papadimitriou, N.; Dimou, N.; Tsilidis, K.K.; Banbury, B.; Martin, R.M.; Lewis, S.J.; Kazmi, N.; Robinson, T.M.; Albanes, D.; Aleksandrova, K.; et al. Physical activity and risks of breast and colorectal cancer: a Mendelian randomisation analysis. Nat. Commun. 2020, 11, 1–10. [CrossRef]
- Rodríguez, P.; Bautista, M.A.; Gonzàlez, J.; Escalera, S. Beyond one-hot encoding: Lower dimensional target embedding. Image Vis. Comput. 2018, 75, 21–31. [CrossRef]
- Scikit-Learn: Machine Learning in Python | The Journal of Machine Learning Research Available online: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/1953048.2078195 (accessed on 29 March 2024).
- Fawcett, T. An Introduction to ROC Analysis. Pattern Recognition Letters 2006, 27, 861–874. [CrossRef]
- Powers, D.M.W. Evaluation: From Precision, Recall and F-Measure to ROC, Informedness, Markedness and Correlation 2020.
- A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictions | Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems Available online: https://dl.acm.org/doi/ 10.5555 /3295222.3295230 (accessed on 30 March 2024).
- Lundberg, S.M.; Erion, G.G.; Lee, S.-I. Consistent Individualized Feature Attribution for Tree Ensembles 2019. [CrossRef]
- Davis, J.; Goadrich, M. The Relationship between Precision-Recall and ROC Curves. In Proceedings of the Proceedings of the 23rd international conference on Machine learning; Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA, June 25 2006; pp. 233–240. [CrossRef]
- Levin, A.; Stevens, P.E.; Bilous, R.W.; Coresh, J.; Francisco, A.L.M.D.; Jong, P.E.D.; Griffith, K.E.; Hemmelgarn, B.R.; Iseki, K.; Lamb, E.J.; et al. Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) CKD Work Group. KDIGO 2012 Clinical Practice Guideline for the Evaluation and Management of Chronic Kidney Disease. Kidney International Supplements 2013, 3, 1–150. [CrossRef]



| Variable | No (N = 10,332) | Yes (N = 2,060) | P Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| age | 41.50 (40.94,42.05) | 52.09 (50.67,53.51) | < 0.0001 |
| poverty | 3.03 (2.94,3.13) | 2.71 (2.59,2.84) | < 0.0001 |
| sex | < 0.0001 | ||
| Female | 5300 (51.13) | 1158 (59.72) | |
| Male | 5032 (48.87) | 902 (40.28) | |
| eth1 | < 0.001 | ||
| Mexican American | 2067 (8.84) | 342 (8.07) | |
| Non-Hispanic Black | 2166 (9.97) | 533 (14.23) | |
| Non-Hispanic White | 4134 (68.92) | 878 (66.30) | |
| Other Hispanic | 855 (5.87) | 138 (5.02) | |
| Other Race including multi-racial | 1110 (6.41) | 169 (6.38) | |
| Country_of_birth | 0.01 | ||
| Born Elsewhere | 350 (4.82) | 59 (4.68) | |
| Born in 50 U.S. states or Washington DC | 3467 (39.08) | 687 (37.44) | |
| Born in 50 U.S. States or Washington DC | 4173 (44.61) | 981 (48.81) | |
| Born in Mexico | 611 (2.55) | 81 (1.53) | |
| Born in Other Non-Spanish Speaking Country | 67 (0.41) | 24 (0.80) | |
| Born in Other Spanish Speaking Country | 44 (0.15) | 16 (0.32) | |
| Others | 1620 (8.39) | 212 (6.42) | |
| citizenship | < 0.0001 | ||
| Citizen by birth or naturalization | 8779 (90.36) | 1868 (94.10) | |
| Not a citizen of the U.S. | 1553 (9.64) | 192 (5.90) | |
| household_size | < 0.0001 | ||
| 1 | 961 (10.05) | 377 (16.54) | |
| 2 | 2619 (31.08) | 661 (37.90) | |
| 3 | 1887 (19.01) | 295 (14.61) | |
| 4 | 2025 (20.19) | 282 (13.67) | |
| 5 | 1408 (11.15) | 236 (10.28) | |
| 6 | 691 (4.44) | 108 (3.89) | |
| 7 or more people in the Household | 741 (4.08) | 101 (3.11) | |
| 9-11th grade (Includes 12th grade with no diploma) | 505 (3.44) | 114 (4.39) | |
| 9-11th Grade (Includes 12th grade with no diploma) | 539 (4.86) | 169 (7.90) | |
| 9th grade | 66 (0.41) | 6 (0.16) | |
| 9th Grade | 192 (0.73) | 31 (1.13) | |
| College graduate or above | 1313 (15.90) | 149 (11.29) | |
| College Graduate or above | 798 (12.75) | 122 (8.21) | |
| GED or equivalent | 2 (0.01) | 0 (0.00) | |
| GED or Equivalent | 16 (0.06) | 2 (0.05) | |
| High School Grad/GED or Equivalent | 817 (11.23) | 207 (12.22) | |
| High school graduate | 69 (0.46) | 8 (0.25) | |
| High School Graduate | 136 (0.60) | 15 (0.54) | |
| High school graduate/GED or equivalent | 971 (8.77) | 193 (9.42) | |
| Less Than 5th Grade | 0 (0.00) | 1 (0.02) | |
| Less than 9th grade | 377 (1.88) | 80 (2.21) | |
| Less Than 9th Grade | 443 (2.54) | 170 (5.41) | |
| More than high school | 153 (0.78) | 23 (0.83) | |
| Never attended / kindergarten only | 0 (0.00) | 9 (0.40) | |
| Some college or AA degree | 1379 (14.07) | 232 (11.32) | |
| Some College or AA degree | 980 (14.35) | 196 (13.07) |
| Variable | Total | No | Yes | P Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| self_reported_better_ear | 0.03 | |||
| no / don’t know | 10422 (84.1) | 8766 (83.73) | 1656 (80.76) | |
| yes, left ear | 832 (6.71) | 656 (7.10) | 176 (8.82) | |
| yes, right ear | 1138 (9.18) | 910 (9.17) | 228 (10.42) | |
| excessive_cerumen_left_ear | < 0.0001 | |||
| no | 10971 (88.53) | 9227 (90.88) | 1744 (86.56) | |
| yes | 1421(11.47) | 1105 (9.12) | 316 (13.44) | |
| impacted_cerumen_left_ear | 0.03 | |||
| no | 12089 (97.55) | 10072 (97.56) | 2017 (98.53) | |
| yes | 303 (2.45) | 260 (2.44) | 43 (1.47) | |
| otoscopy_left_ear | 0.002 | |||
| no | 1798 (14.51) | 1423 (12.13) | 375 (15.94) | |
| yes | 10594 (85.49) | 8909 (87.87) | 1685 (84.06) | |
| collapsing_ear_canals_left_ear | 0.11 | |||
| no | 12305 (99.3) | 10271 (99.29) | 2034 (98.84) | |
| yes | 87 (0.7) | 61(0.71) | 26 (1.16) | |
| normal_otoscopy_right_ear | < 0.0001 | |||
| no | 1957 (15.79) | 1550 (13.45) | 407 (18.61) | |
| yes | 10435 (84.21) | 8782 (86.55) | 1653 (81.39) | |
| excessive_cerumen_right_ear | < 0.0001 | |||
| no | 10862 (87.65) | 9131 (89.81) | 1731 (84.44) | |
| yes | 1530 (12.35) | 1201 (10.19) | 329 (15.56) | |
| impacted_cerumen_right_ear | 0.84 | |||
| no | 12045 (97.2) | 10049 (97.36) | 1996 (97.46) | |
| yes | 347 (2.8) | 283 (2.64) | 64 (2.54) | |
| collapsing_ear_canals_right_ear | 0.26 | |||
| no | 12313 (99.36) | 10276 (99.32) | 2037 (99.00) | |
| yes | 79 (0.64) | 56 (0.68) | 23 (1.00) | yes |
| Variable | No (N = 10,332) | Yes (N = 2,060) | P Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| tympanic_right_middle_ear_pressure_dapa | -12.22 (-13.23,-11.22) | -11.58 (-13.62, -9.54) | 0.57 |
| tympanic_right_physical_volume_cc | 1.44 (1.42,1.46) | 1.39 (1.36,1.42) | 0.003 |
| tympanic_right_width | 82.08 (80.97,83.19) | 83.61 (81.89,85.34) | 0.14 |
| tympanic_right_compliance | 0.79 (0.78,0.81) | 0.72 (0.69,0.75) | < 0.0001 |
| tympanic_left_middle_ear_pressure_dapa | -11.15 (-12.19,-10.10) | -9.86 (-11.50, -8.23) | 0.23 |
| tympanic_left_physical_volume_cc | 1.40 (1.38,1.43) | 1.34 (1.31,1.37) | < 0.001 |
| tympanic_left_width | 82.12 (81.00,83.24) | 83.27 (81.27,85.26) | 0.31 |
| tympanic_left_compliance | 0.79 (0.78,0.81) | 0.72 (0.68,0.75) | < 0.001 |
| right_threshold_1000hz_db | 10.18 (9.79,10.57) | 15.51 (14.57,16.46) | < 0.0001 |
| right_threshold_500hz_db | 11.30 (10.91,11.70) | 16.15 (15.32,16.99) | < 0.0001 |
| right_threshold_1000hz_2nd_read_db | 9.61 (9.23,10.00) | 15.17 (14.21,16.12) | < 0.0001 |
| right_threshold_2000hz_db | 10.86 (10.39,11.34) | 19.14 (17.87,20.42) | < 0.0001 |
| right_threshold_3000hz_db | 14.30 (13.77,14.83) | 24.15 (22.66,25.64) | < 0.0001 |
| right_threshold_4000hz_db | 17.75 (17.10,18.39) | 29.07 (27.46,30.68) | < 0.0001 |
| right_threshold_6000hz_db | 23.87 (23.06,24.67) | 36.07 (34.45,37.68) | < 0.0001 |
| right_threshold_8000hz_db | 24.74 (23.81,25.67) | 39.87 (37.93,41.81) | < 0.0001 |
| left_threshold_1000hz_db | 9.90 (9.57,10.23) | 15.20 (14.29,16.11) | < 0.0001 |
| left_threshold_500hz_db | 11.10 (10.80,11.41) | 15.71 (14.96,16.47) | < 0.0001 |
| left_threshold_1000hz_2nd_read_db | 9.56 (9.22, 9.89) | 14.97 (14.08,15.86) | < 0.0001 |
| left_threshold_2000hz_db | 11.35 (10.90,11.81) | 19.53 (18.36,20.70) | < 0.0001 |
| Character | Est. | Std. Err | t Value | Pr (>|t|) | OR | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| tympanic_right_middle_ear_pressure (dapa) | 0 | 0 | 0.55 | 0.58 | 1 | 1.00 (1.00,1.00) |
| tympanic_right_physical_volume(cc) | -0.25 | 0.09 | -2.89 | 0.004 | 0.78 | 0.78 (0.65,0.92) |
| tympanic_right_width | 0 | 0 | 1.5 | 0.14 | 1 | 1.00 (1.00,1.00) |
| tympanic_right_compliance | -0.34 | 0.09 | -3.7 | <0.001 | 0.71 | 0.71 (0.59,0.85) |
| tympanic_left_middle_ear_pressure(dapa) | 0 | 0 | 1.16 | 0.25 | 1 | 1.00 (1.00,1.00) |
| tympanic_left_physical_volume_cc | -0.35 | 0.1 | -3.61 | <0.001 | 0.71 | 0.71 (0.59,0.86) |
| tympanic_left_width | 0 | 0 | 1.02 | 0.31 | 1 | 1.00 (1.00,1.00) |
| tympanic_left_compliance | -0.34 | 0.11 | -3.14 | 0.002 | 0.71 | 0.71 (0.57,0.88) |
| right_threshold_1000hz_db | 0.03 | 0 | 12.5 | <0.0001 | 1.03 | 1.03 (1.03,1.04) |
| right_threshold_500hz_db | 0.03 | 0 | 11.77 | <0.0001 | 1.03 | 1.03 (1.03,1.04) |
| right_threshold_1000hz_2nd_read_db | 0.03 | 0 | 13.32 | <0.0001 | 1.03 | 1.03 (1.03,1.04) |
| right_threshold_2000hz_db | 0.03 | 0 | 15.15 | <0.0001 | 1.03 | 1.03 (1.03,1.04) |
| right_threshold_3000hz_db | 0.03 | 0 | 15.99 | <0.0001 | 1.03 | 1.03 (1.02,1.03) |
| right_threshold_4000hz_db | 0.02 | 0 | 16.85 | <0.0001 | 1.02 | 1.02 (1.02,1.03) |
| right_threshold_6000hz_db | 0.02 | 0 | 16.2 | <0.0001 | 1.02 | 1.02 (1.02,1.03) |
| right_threshold_8000hz_db | 0.02 | 0 | 18.54 | <0.0001 | 1.02 | 1.02 (1.02,1.02) |
| left_threshold_1000hz_db | 0.03 | 0 | 12.92 | <0.0001 | 1.03 | 1.03 (1.03,1.04) |
| left_threshold_500hz_db | 0.03 | 0 | 12.25 | <0.0001 | 1.03 | 1.03 (1.03,1.04) |
| left_threshold_1000hz_2nd_read_db | 0.03 | 0 | 13.37 | <0.0001 | 1.03 | 1.03 (1.03,1.04) |
| left_threshold_2000hz_db | 0.03 | 0 | 14.97 | <0.0001 | 1.03 | 1.03 (1.03,1.04) |
| Feature | Correlation |
|---|---|
| citizenship | 0.5542568 |
| right_threshold_1000hz_db | 0.4365804 |
| self_reported_better_ear | 0.3382538 |
| poverty | 0.2730662 |
| age | 0.2408413 |
| tympanic_left_compliance | 0.2054256 |
| tympanic_left_physical_volume_cc | 0.2003082 |
| left_threshold_1000hz_2nd_read_db | 0.1580396 |
| right_threshold_3000hz_db | 0.1485964 |
| impacted_cerumen_left_ear | 0.1237963 |
| Authors | Dataset | Algorithms | Performance | Limitations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Stefan Ravizza et al [19] |
IBM Explorys & Indiana Network for Patient Care | Feature selection strategy and logistic regression | The overall AUC value is 0.7937 | Prediction of CKD as a diabetic complication |
| Jiamin Chen et al [20] |
MIMIC-IV | LASSO multivariate logistic regression analysis |
The AUC value is 0.771 | Only indicators for 14 attributes included, with potential selection bias |
| Dai Su et al [21] |
HABCS | LR Lasso RF GBDT SVM DNN |
The maximum AUC is 0.75 | Limitations include a small dataset size and potential biases due to reliance on self-reported medical history. |
| Jing Xiao et al [22] |
Shanghai Huadong Hospital | LR Ridge Lasso SVM RF KNN NN XGBoost |
The highest AUC was 0.873 | Only 5 population indicators, which predict 24-hour proteinuria. |
| Zheyi Dong et al [23] |
People’s Liberation Army (PLA) General Hospital | LightGBM XGBoost AdaBoost NN DT SYM LR |
The highest AUC is 0.815 | Single-institution setting, small sample size, and potential bias from missing data in EMR,not using suitable feature selection techniques for the dataset |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).