IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0194985.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Personalized survival predictions via Trees of Predictors: An application to cardiac transplantation

Author

Listed:
  • Jinsung Yoon
  • William R Zame
  • Amitava Banerjee
  • Martin Cadeiras
  • Ahmed M Alaa
  • Mihaela van der Schaar

Abstract

Background: Risk prediction is crucial in many areas of medical practice, such as cardiac transplantation, but existing clinical risk-scoring methods have suboptimal performance. We develop a novel risk prediction algorithm and test its performance on the database of all patients who were registered for cardiac transplantation in the United States during 1985-2015. Methods and findings: We develop a new, interpretable, methodology (ToPs: Trees of Predictors) built on the principle that specific predictive (survival) models should be used for specific clusters within the patient population. ToPs discovers these specific clusters and the specific predictive model that performs best for each cluster. In comparison with existing clinical risk scoring methods and state-of-the-art machine learning methods, our method provides significant improvements in survival predictions, both post- and pre-cardiac transplantation. For instance: in terms of 3-month survival post-transplantation, our method achieves AUC of 0.660; the best clinical risk scoring method (RSS) achieves 0.587. In terms of 3-year survival/mortality predictions post-transplantation (in comparison to RSS), holding specificity at 80.0%, our algorithm correctly predicts survival for 2,442 (14.0%) more patients (of 17,441 who actually survived); holding sensitivity at 80.0%, our algorithm correctly predicts mortality for 694 (13.0%) more patients (of 5,339 who did not survive). ToPs achieves similar improvements for other time horizons and for predictions pre-transplantation. ToPs discovers the most relevant features (covariates), uses available features to best advantage, and can adapt to changes in clinical practice. Conclusions: We show that, in comparison with existing clinical risk-scoring methods and other machine learning methods, ToPs significantly improves survival predictions both post- and pre-cardiac transplantation. ToPs provides a more accurate, personalized approach to survival prediction that can benefit patients, clinicians, and policymakers in making clinical decisions and setting clinical policy. Because survival prediction is widely used in clinical decision-making across diseases and clinical specialties, the implications of our methods are far-reaching.

Suggested Citation

  • Jinsung Yoon & William R Zame & Amitava Banerjee & Martin Cadeiras & Ahmed M Alaa & Mihaela van der Schaar, 2018. "Personalized survival predictions via Trees of Predictors: An application to cardiac transplantation," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(3), pages 1-19, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0194985
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0194985
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0194985
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0194985&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0194985?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0194985. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.