↓ Skip to main content

Improving precision of glomerular filtration rate estimating model by ensemble learning

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Translational Medicine, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
24 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Improving precision of glomerular filtration rate estimating model by ensemble learning
Published in
Journal of Translational Medicine, November 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12967-017-1337-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Xun Liu, Ningshan Li, Linsheng Lv, Yongmei Fu, Cailian Cheng, Caixia Wang, Yuqiu Ye, Shaomin Li, Tanqi Lou

Abstract

Accurate assessment of kidney function is clinically important, but estimates of glomerular filtration rate (GFR) by regression are imprecise. We hypothesized that ensemble learning could improve precision. A total of 1419 participants were enrolled, with 1002 in the development dataset and 417 in the external validation dataset. GFR was independently estimated from age, sex and serum creatinine using an artificial neural network (ANN), support vector machine (SVM), regression, and ensemble learning. GFR was measured by 99mTc-DTPA renal dynamic imaging calibrated with dual plasma sample 99mTc-DTPA GFR. Mean measured GFRs were 70.0 ml/min/1.73 m(2) in the developmental and 53.4 ml/min/1.73 m(2) in the external validation cohorts. In the external validation cohort, precision was better in the ensemble model of the ANN, SVM and regression equation (IQR = 13.5 ml/min/1.73 m(2)) than in the new regression model (IQR = 14.0 ml/min/1.73 m(2), P < 0.001). The precision of ensemble learning was the best of the three models, but the models had similar bias and accuracy. The median difference ranged from 2.3 to 3.7 ml/min/1.73 m(2), 30% accuracy ranged from 73.1 to 76.0%, and P was > 0.05 for all comparisons of the new regression equation and the other new models. An ensemble learning model including three variables, the average ANN, SVM, and regression equation values, was more precise than the new regression model. A more complex ensemble learning strategy may further improve GFR estimates.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 24 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 24 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 17%
Student > Master 4 17%
Student > Bachelor 4 17%
Researcher 2 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 8%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 7 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 42%
Computer Science 2 8%
Engineering 2 8%
Neuroscience 1 4%
Social Sciences 1 4%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 8 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 November 2017.
All research outputs
#15,483,026
of 23,007,887 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Translational Medicine
#2,258
of 4,023 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#207,465
of 331,173 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Translational Medicine
#37
of 65 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,007,887 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,023 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.6. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 331,173 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 65 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.