Comparing machine learning and logistic regression for acute kidney injury prediction in trauma patients: A retrospective observational study at a single tertiary medical center

Abstract

Acute kidney injury (AKI) is common in patients with trauma and is associated with poor outcomes. Therefore, early prediction of AKI in patients with trauma is important for risk stratification and the provision of optimal intensive care unit treatment. This study aimed to compare 2 models, machine learning (ML) techniques and logistic regression, in predicting AKI in patients with trauma. We retrospectively reviewed the charts of 400 patients who sustained torso injuries between January 2016 and June 2020. Patients were included if they were aged > 15 years, admitted to the intensive care unit, survived for > 48 hours, had thoracic and/or abdominal injuries, had no end-stage renal disease, and had no missing data. AKI was defined in accordance with the Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes definition and staging system. The patients were divided into 2 groups: AKI (n = 78) and non-AKI (n = 322). We divided the original dataset into a training (80%) and a test set (20%), and the logistic regression with stepwise selection and ML (decision tree with hyperparameter optimization using grid search and cross-validation) was used to build a model for predicting AKI. The models established using the training dataset were evaluated using a confusion matrix receiver operating characteristic curve with the test dataset. We included 400 patients with torso injury, of whom 78 (19.5%) progressed to AKI. Age, intestinal injury, cumulative fluid balance within 24 hours, and the use of vasopressors were independent risk factors for AKI in the logistic regression model. In the ML model, vasopressors were the most important feature, followed by cumulative fluid balance within 24 hours and packed red blood cell transfusion within 4 hours. The accuracy score showed no differences between the 2 groups; however, the recall and F1 score were significantly higher in the ML model (.94 vs 56 and.75 vs 64, respectively). The ML model performed better than the logistic regression model in predicting AKI in patients with trauma. ML techniques can aid in risk stratification and the provision of optimal care.

Figure 1.

Fow chart of data processing and analysis.

Figure 2.

SHAP value of the machine learning model output. SHAP = shapley additive exPlanations, pRBC = packed red blood cells, ISS = injury severity score, AIS_chest = abbreviated injury scale score (chest).

Figure 3.

Learning curve of the decision tree model after hyperparameter tuning.

Figure 4.

Confusion matrices of both models and accuracy, precision, recall, and F1 scores using the test dataset.

Figure 5.

Receiver operating characteristic curve for estimating the discrimination between the Logistic regression model and the machine learning model.