4.5 Article

Novel Risk Assessment Tool for Immunoglobulin Resistance in Kawasaki Disease Application Using a Random Forest Classifier

期刊

PEDIATRIC INFECTIOUS DISEASE JOURNAL
卷 36, 期 9, 页码 821-826

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/INF.0000000000001621

关键词

Kawasaki disease; intravenous immunoglobulin; random forest; machine learning; clinical prediction model

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Resistance to intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) therapy is a risk factor for coronary lesions in patients with Kawasaki disease (KD). Risk-adjusted initial therapy may improve coronary outcome in KD, but identification of high risk patients remains a challenge. This study aimed to develop a new risk assessment tool for IVIG resistance using advanced statistical techniques. Methods: Data were retrospectively collected from KD patients receiving IVIG therapy, including demographic characteristics, signs and symptoms of KD and laboratory results. A random forest (RF) classifier, a tree-based machine learning technique, was applied to these data. The correlation between each variable and risk of IVIG resistance was estimated. Results: Data were obtained from 767 patients with KD, including 170 (22.1%) who were refractory to initial IVIG therapy. The predictive tool based on the RF algorithm had an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.916, a sensitivity of 79.7% and a specificity of 87.3%. Its misclassification rate in the general patient population was estimated to be 15.5%. RF also identified markers related to IVIG resistance such as abnormal liver markers and percentage neutrophils, displaying relationships between these markers and predicted risk. Conclusions: The RF classifier reliably identified KD patients at high risk for IVIG resistance, presenting clinical markers relevant to treatment failure. Evaluation in other patient populations is required to determine whether this risk assessment tool relying on RF has clinical value.

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

4.5
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