A Machine Learning-Driven Virtual Biopsy System For Kidney Transplant Patients.
Journal
Nature communications
ISSN: 2041-1723
Titre abrégé: Nat Commun
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101528555
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
16 Jan 2024
16 Jan 2024
Historique:
received:
26
06
2023
accepted:
21
12
2023
medline:
17
1
2024
pubmed:
17
1
2024
entrez:
16
1
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
In kidney transplantation, day-zero biopsies are used to assess organ quality and discriminate between donor-inherited lesions and those acquired post-transplantation. However, many centers do not perform such biopsies since they are invasive, costly and may delay the transplant procedure. We aim to generate a non-invasive virtual biopsy system using routinely collected donor parameters. Using 14,032 day-zero kidney biopsies from 17 international centers, we develop a virtual biopsy system. 11 basic donor parameters are used to predict four Banff kidney lesions: arteriosclerosis, arteriolar hyalinosis, interstitial fibrosis and tubular atrophy, and the percentage of renal sclerotic glomeruli. Six machine learning models are aggregated into an ensemble model. The virtual biopsy system shows good performance in the internal and external validation sets. We confirm the generalizability of the system in various scenarios. This system could assist physicians in assessing organ quality, optimizing allograft allocation together with discriminating between donor derived and acquired lesions post-transplantation.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38228634
doi: 10.1038/s41467-023-44595-z
pii: 10.1038/s41467-023-44595-z
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
554Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Mallory, T. B. Pathology. N. Engl. J. Med. 236, 438–443 (1947).
pubmed: 20288395
doi: 10.1056/NEJM194703202361204
Barry, J. M. & Murray, J. E. The first human renal transplants. J. Urol. 176, 888–890 (2006).
pubmed: 16890645
doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2006.04.062
Michon, L. et al. [An attempted kidney transplantation in man: medical and biological aspects]. Presse Med. 61, 1419–1423 (1953).
Gaber, L. W. et al. Glomerulosclerosis as a determinant of posttransplant function of older donor renal allografts. Transplantation 60, 334–339 (1995).
pubmed: 7652761
doi: 10.1097/00007890-199508270-00006
Naesens, M. Zero-time renal transplant biopsies: a comprehensive review. Transplantation 100, 1425–1439 (2016).
pubmed: 26599490
doi: 10.1097/TP.0000000000001018
Mengel, M. et al. Protocol biopsies in renal transplantation: insights into patient management and pathogenesis. Am. J. Transpl. 7, 512–517 (2007).
doi: 10.1111/j.1600-6143.2006.01677.x
Chauhan, A. et al. Using implantation biopsies as a surrogate to evaluate selection criteria for living kidney donors. Transplantation 96, 975–980 (2013).
pubmed: 23924773
doi: 10.1097/TP.0b013e3182a2b455
Randhawa, P. Role of donor kidney biopsies in renal transplantation. Transplantation 71, 1361–1365 (2001).
pubmed: 11391219
doi: 10.1097/00007890-200105270-00001
Solez, K. et al. Banff 07 classification of renal allograft pathology: updates and future directions. Am. J. Transplant. 8, 753–760 (2008).
pubmed: 18294345
doi: 10.1111/j.1600-6143.2008.02159.x
Sung, R. S. et al. Determinants of discard of expanded criteria donor kidneys: impact of biopsy and machine perfusion. Am. J. Transpl. 8, 783–792 (2008).
doi: 10.1111/j.1600-6143.2008.02157.x
Mengel, M. & Sis, B. An appeal for zero-time biopsies in renal transplantation. Am. J. Transpl. 8, 2181–2182 (2008).
doi: 10.1111/j.1600-6143.2008.02380.x
Springfield, D. S. & Rosenberg, A. Biopsy: complicated and risky. J. Bone Jt. Surg. Am. 78, 639–643 (1996).
doi: 10.2106/00004623-199605000-00001
Aubert, O. et al. Long term outcomes of transplantation using kidneys from expanded criteria donors: prospective, population based cohort study. BMJ 351, h3557 (2015).
pubmed: 26232393
pmcid: 4521904
doi: 10.1136/bmj.h3557
Matas, A. J. et al. OPTN/SRTR 2013 Annual Data Report: kidney. Am. J. Transpl. 15, 1–34 (2015).
doi: 10.1111/ajt.13195
Jadlowiec, C. C. et al. Transplant outcomes using kidneys from high KDPI acute kidney injury donors. Clin. Transpl. 35, e14279 (2021).
doi: 10.1111/ctr.14279
Mancilla, E. et al. Time-zero renal biopsy in living kidney transplantation: a valuable opportunity to correlate predonation clinical data with histological abnormalities. Transplantation 86, 1684–1688 (2008).
pubmed: 19104405
doi: 10.1097/TP.0b013e3181906150
Bora, A. et al. Predicting the risk of developing diabetic retinopathy using deep learning. Lancet Digit Health 3, e10–e19 (2021).
pubmed: 33735063
doi: 10.1016/S2589-7500(20)30250-8
Miles, J., Turner, J., Jacques, R., Williams, J. & Mason, S. Using machine-learning risk prediction models to triage the acuity of undifferentiated patients entering the emergency care system: a systematic review. Diagn. Progn. Res 4, 16 (2020).
pubmed: 33024830
pmcid: 7531169
doi: 10.1186/s41512-020-00084-1
Sufriyana, H. et al. Comparison of multivariable logistic regression and other machine learning algorithms for prognostic prediction studies in pregnancy care: systematic review and meta-analysis. JMIR Med. Inf. 8, e16503 (2020).
doi: 10.2196/16503
Huang, P. et al. Prediction of lung cancer risk at follow-up screening with low-dose CT: a training and validation study of a deep learning method. Lancet Digit Health 1, e353–e362 (2019).
pubmed: 32864596
pmcid: 7450858
doi: 10.1016/S2589-7500(19)30159-1
Roufosse, C. et al. A 2018 reference guide to the banff classification of renal allograft pathology. Transplantation 102, 1795–1814 (2018).
pubmed: 30028786
pmcid: 7597974
doi: 10.1097/TP.0000000000002366
Pérez-Sáez, M. J., Montero, N., Redondo-Pachón, D., Crespo, M. & Pascual, J. Strategies for an expanded use of kidneys from elderly donors. Transplantation 101, 727–745 (2017).
pubmed: 28072755
pmcid: 7228607
doi: 10.1097/TP.0000000000001635
Azancot, M. A. et al. The reproducibility and predictive value on outcome of renal biopsies from expanded criteria donors. Kidney Int. 85, 1161–1168 (2014).
pubmed: 24284518
doi: 10.1038/ki.2013.461
Yin, P.-N. et al. Histopathological distinction of non-invasive and invasive bladder cancers using machine learning approaches. BMC Med. Inform. Decis. Mak. 20, 162 (2020).
pubmed: 32680493
pmcid: 7367328
doi: 10.1186/s12911-020-01185-z
Marsh, J. N. et al. Deep learning global glomerulosclerosis in transplant kidney frozen sections. IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging 37, 2718–2728 (2018).
pubmed: 29994669
pmcid: 6296264
doi: 10.1109/TMI.2018.2851150
Hara, S. et al. Evaluating tubulointerstitial compartments in renal biopsy specimens using a deep learning-based approach for classifying normal and abnormal tubules. PLoS One 17, e0271161 (2022).
pubmed: 35816495
pmcid: 9273082
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0271161
Chapman, J. R. Chronic calcineurin inhibitor nephrotoxicity-lest we forget. Am. J. Transpl. 11, 693–697 (2011).
doi: 10.1111/j.1600-6143.2011.03504.x
Loupy, A. et al. Determinants and Outcomes of accelerated arteriosclerosis: major impact of circulating antibodies. Circ. Res 117, 470–482 (2015).
pubmed: 26056252
doi: 10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.117.306340
Gosset, C. et al. Circulating donor-specific anti-HLA antibodies are a major factor in premature and accelerated allograft fibrosis. Kidney Int. 92, 729–742 (2017).
pubmed: 28554738
doi: 10.1016/j.kint.2017.03.033
Loupy, A. & Lefaucheur, C. Antibody-mediated rejection of solid-organ allografts. N. Engl. J. Med 379, 1150–1160 (2018).
pubmed: 30231232
doi: 10.1056/NEJMra1802677
Debout, A. et al. Each additional hour of cold ischemia time significantly increases the risk of graft failure and mortality following renal transplantation. Kidney Int. 87, 343–349 (2015).
pubmed: 25229341
doi: 10.1038/ki.2014.304
Obermeyer, Z. & Emanuel, E. J. Predicting the future - big data, machine learning, and clinical medicine. N. Engl. J. Med. 375, 1216–1219 (2016).
pubmed: 27682033
pmcid: 5070532
doi: 10.1056/NEJMp1606181
Rajkomar, A., Dean, J. & Kohane, I. Machine learning in medicine. N. Engl. J. Med. 380, 1347–1358 (2019).
pubmed: 30943338
doi: 10.1056/NEJMra1814259
Haas, M. et al. Arteriosclerosis in kidneys from healthy live donors: comparison of wedge and needle core perioperative biopsies. Arch. Pathol. Lab Med. 132, 37–42 (2008).
pubmed: 18181671
doi: 10.5858/2008-132-37-AIKFHL
Muruve, N. A., Steinbecker, K. M. & Luger, A. M. Are wedge biopsies of cadaveric kidneys obtained at procurement reliable? Transplantation 69, 2384–2388 (2000).
pubmed: 10868645
doi: 10.1097/00007890-200006150-00029
Bago-Horvath, Z. et al. The cutting (w)edge–comparative evaluation of renal baseline biopsies obtained by two different methods. Nephrol. Dial. Transpl. 27, 3241–3248 (2012).
doi: 10.1093/ndt/gfs066
Wainer, J. & Cawley, G. Nested cross-validation when selecting classifiers is overzealous for most practical applications. Expert. Syst. Appl. 182, 115222 (2021).
doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2021.115222
Collins, G. S., Reitsma, J. B., Altman, D. G. & Moons, K. G. M. Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD): the TRIPOD statement. BMJ 350, g7594 (2015).
pubmed: 25569120
doi: 10.1136/bmj.g7594
Kuhn, M. Building Predictive Models in R Using the caret Package. J. Stat. Softw., Artic. 28, 1–26 (2008).
Breiman, L. Random Forests. Mach. Learn. 45, 5–32 (2001).
doi: 10.1023/A:1010933404324
Ripley, B. D. & Hjort, N. L. Pattern Recognition and Neural Networks. (Cambridge University Press, 1996).
Friedman, J. H. Stochastic gradient boosting. Comput. Stat. Data Anal. 38, 367–378 (2002).
doi: 10.1016/S0167-9473(01)00065-2
Chen, T. & Guestrin, C. XGBoost: A Scalable Tree Boosting System. in Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining - KDD ’16 785–794 (ACM Press, 2016). https://doi.org/10.1145/2939672.2939785 .
Ripley, B. D. Modern applied statistics with S. (springer, 2002).
Kohavi, R. A study of cross-validation and bootstrap for accuracy estimation and model selection. in Proc. 14th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence vol. 14 1137–1145 (Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, 1995).
Doan, H. T. X. & Foody, G. M. Increasing soft classification accuracy through the use of an ensemble of classifiers. Int. J. Remote Sens. 28, 4609–4623 (2007).
doi: 10.1080/01431160701244872
Wolpert, D. H. & Macready, W. G. No free lunch theorems for optimization. IEEE Trans. Evolut. Comput. 1, 67–82 (1997).
doi: 10.1109/4235.585893
Wolpert, D. H. Stacked generalization. Neural Netw. 5, 241–259 (1992).
doi: 10.1016/S0893-6080(05)80023-1
Willmott, C. J. & Matsuura, K. Advantages of the mean absolute error (MAE) over the root mean square error (RMSE) in assessing average model performance. Clim. Res. 30, 79–82 (2005).
doi: 10.3354/cr030079
Hand, D. J. & Till, R. J. A simple generalisation of the area under the ROC curve for multiple class classification problems. Mach. Learn. 45, 171–186 (2001).
doi: 10.1023/A:1010920819831
Youden, W. J. Index for rating diagnostic tests. Cancer 3, 32–35 (1950).
pubmed: 15405679
doi: 10.1002/1097-0142(1950)3:1<32::AID-CNCR2820030106>3.0.CO;2-3
Stekhoven, D. J. & Bühlmann, P. MissForest–non-parametric missing value imputation for mixed-type data. Bioinformatics 28, 112–118 (2012).
pubmed: 22039212
doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btr597
Loupy, A. et al. Virtual biopsy system. https://doi.org/10.7303/syn51702348