多中心机器学习构建预测潜在器官捐献者的模型与决策曲线验证研究

Multicenter machine learning-based construction of a model for predicting potential organ donors and validation with decision curve analysis

  • 摘要:
    目的  评估在多中心环境下构建的不同机器学习模型对潜在器官捐献者的预测价值并验证其临床应用可行性。
    方法  研究纳入国内5家三级甲等医院在2020年1月至2023年12月收治的2 000例符合潜在器官捐献评估标准的住院患者,随机分为训练集和内部验证集(7∶3),另纳入2024年1月至2025年4月在哈尔滨医科大学附属第一医院收治的300例同类患者作为外部验证集。比较3种模型的曲线下面积(AUC)、灵敏度、特异度、准确率、F1-score,并对潜在器官捐献者判定流程一致性进行检验。采用多因素logistic回归分析潜在器官捐献者的预测因素,利用决策曲线分析(DCA)验证各模型的资源效益,评估阈值区间与干预平衡点。
    结果  各中心除年龄外其他基本特征差异均无统计学意义(均为P>0.05),各中心研究者潜在器官捐献者判定流程间一致性良好均为95%可信区间(CI)下限>0。内部验证集中,XGBoost模型的预测性能最佳(AUC=0.92,95%CI 0.89~0.94)且校准最佳(P=0.441,Brier分数0.099);外部验证集中,XGBoost模型的预测性能最佳(AUC=0.91,95%CI 0.88~0.94),均优于logistic回归与随机森林。多因素logistic回归显示使用机械通气影响最大(比值比=2.06,95%CI 1.54~2.76,P<0.001)。DCA显示XGBoost模型在0.2~0.6阈值区间净获益最高,“全部干预”策略仅在极低阈值略占优势,推荐阈值区间兼顾≥50%PPV与≤50例/100例高危患者转介量,可平衡干预成本与临床受益。
    结论  多中心环境下建立的XGBoost模型在预测潜在器官捐献者方面准确率与校准度均较理想,结合DCA可有效指导临床干预时机与资源分配,为脑死亡后器官捐献评估与管理提供新思路。

     

    Abstract:
    Objective  To evaluate the predictive value of different machine learning models constructed in a multicenter environment for potential organ donors and verify their clinical application feasibility.
    Methods  The study included 2 000 inpatients admitted to five domestic tertiary hospitals from January 2020 to December 2023, who met the criteria for potential organ donation assessment. They were randomly divided into a training set and an internal validation set (7∶3). Another 300 similar patients admitted to the First Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University from January 2024 to April 2025 were included as an external validation set. The area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity, accuracy and F1-score of three models were compared, and the consistency of the potential organ donor determination process was tested. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to identify predictive factors of potential organ donors. Decision curve analysis (DCA) was employed to verify the resource efficiency of each model, and the threshold interval and intervention balance point were assessed.
    Results  Apart from age, there were no significant differences in other basic characteristics among the centers (all P>0.05). The consistency of the potential organ donor determination process among researchers in each center was good all 95% confidence interval (CI) lower limits >0. In the internal validation set, the XGBoost model had the best predictive performance (AUC=0.92, 95% CI 0.89-0.94) and the best calibration (P=0.441, Brier score 0.099). In the external validation set, the XGBoost model also had the best predictive performance (AUC=0.91, 95% CI 0.88-0.94), outperforming logistic regression and random forest models. Multivariate logistic regression showed that mechanical ventilation had the greatest impact (odds ratio=2.06, 95% CI 1.54-2.76, P<0.001). DCA indicated that the XGBoost model had the highest net benefit in the threshold interval of 0.2-0.6. The “treat all” strategy only had a slight advantage at extremely low thresholds. The recommended threshold interval, which balances intervention costs and clinical benefits, considers ≥50% positive predictive value (PPV) and ≤50 referrals per 100 high-risk patients.
    Conclusions  The XGBoost model established in a multicenter environment is accurate and well-calibrated in predicting potential organ donors. Combined with DCA, it may effectively guide the timing of clinical interventions and resource allocation, providing new ideas for the assessment and management of organ donation after brain death.

     

/

返回文章
返回