4.7 Article

Warfarin maintenance dose prediction for Chinese after heart valve replacement by a feedforward neural network with equal stratified sampling

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 11, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-93317-2

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study aims to improve the precision of the feedforward neural network model in predicting low maintenance dose for Chinese patients by using equal stratified sampling for training data construction. The findings suggest that equal stratified sampling can be a viable alternative approach in building drug dosing models in clinical settings without sacrificing overall performance.
Patients requiring low-dose warfarin are more likely to suffer bleeding due to overdose. The goal of this work is to improve the feedforward neural network model's precision in predicting the low maintenance dose for Chinese in the aspect of training data construction. We built the model from a resampled dataset created by equal stratified sampling (maintaining the same sample number in three dose-groups with a total of 3639) and performed internal and external validations. Comparing to the model trained from the raw dataset of 19,060 eligible cases, we improved the low-dose group's ideal prediction percentage from 0.7 to 9.6% and maintained the overall performance (76.4% vs. 75.6%) in external validation. We further built neural network models on single-dose subsets to invest whether the subsets samples were sufficient and whether the selected factors were appropriate. The training set sizes were 1340 and 1478 for the low and high dose subsets; the corresponding ideal prediction percentages were 70.2% and 75.1%. The training set size for the intermediate dose varied and was 1553, 6214, and 12,429; the corresponding ideal prediction percentages were 95.6, 95.1%, and 95.3%. Our conclusion is that equal stratified sampling can be a considerable alternative approach in training data construction to build drug dosing models in the clinic.

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