Key result
Machine learning identifies five distinct CKD subtypes, linking the cardiometabolic group to ~43% 5-year mortality.
Why the study?
Existing CKD classification systems and risk prediction models largely ignore the complexity of CKD, its risk factors, and its outcomes, whereas improved subtype definition could improve outcome prediction and inform effective interventions.
Can unsupervised machine learning identify distinct subtypes of chronic kidney disease with different prognostic trajectories?
Observational (n=350,067)
Yes
Can unsupervised machine learning identify distinct subtypes of chronic kidney disease with different prognostic trajectories?
Machine learning can identify distinct clinical subtypes of chronic kidney disease that have significantly different prognostic trajectories and medication burdens.
This is the authors' abstract. We don't add key points for this paper.
BACKGROUND: Although chronic kidney disease (CKD) is associated with high multimorbidity, polypharmacy, morbidity and mortality, existing classification systems (mild to severe, usually based on estimated glomerular filtration rate, proteinuria or urine albumin-creatinine ratio) and risk prediction models largely ignore the complexity of CKD, its risk factors and its outcomes. Improved subtype definition could improve prediction of outcomes and inform effective interventions. METHODS: We analysed individuals ≥18 years with incident and prevalent CKD (n = 350,067 and 195,422 respectively) from a population-based electronic health record resource (2006-2020; Clinical Practice Research Datalink, CPRD). We included factors (n = 264 with 2670 derived variables), e.g. demography, history, examination, blood laboratory values and medications. Using a published framework, we identified subtypes through seven unsupervised machine learning (ML) methods (K-means, Diana, HC, Fanny, PAM, Clara, Model-based) with 66 (of 2670) variables in each dataset. We evaluated subtypes for: (i) internal validity (within dataset, across methods); (ii) prognostic validity (predictive accuracy for 5-year all-cause mortality and admissions); and (iii) medications (new and existing by British National Formulary chapter). FINDINGS: After identifying five clusters across seven approaches, we labelled CKD subtypes: 1. Early-onset, 2. Late-onset, 3. Cancer, 4. Metabolic, and 5. Cardiometabolic. Internal validity: We trained a high performing model (using XGBoost) that could predict disease subtypes with 95% accuracy for incident and prevalent CKD (Sensitivity: 0.81-0.98, F1 score:0.84-0.97). Prognostic validity: 5-year all-cause mortality, hospital admissions, and incidence of new chronic diseases differed across CKD subtypes. The 5-year risk of mortality and admissions in the overall incident CKD population were highest in cardiometabolic subtype: 43.3% (42.3-42.8%) and 29.5% (29.1-30.0%), respectively, and lowest in the early-onset subtype: 5.7% (5.5-5.9%) and 18.7% (18.4-19.1%). MEDICATIONS: Across CKD subtypes, the distribution of prescription medication classes at baseline varied, with highest medication burden in cardiometabolic and metabolic subtypes, and higher burden in prevalent than incident CKD. INTERPRETATION: In the largest CKD study using ML, to-date, we identified five distinct subtypes in individuals with incident and prevalent CKD. These subtypes have relevance to study of aetiology, therapeutics and risk prediction. FUNDING: AstraZeneca UK Ltd, Health Data Research UK.
May inform CKD prognosis; leaves open whether subtype-guided therapy improves outcomes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Dashtban et al. (2023) conducted an observational in Chronic kidney disease (CKD) (n=350,067). Unsupervised machine learning subtyping was evaluated on 5-year all-cause mortality and hospital admissions. Unsupervised machine learning identified five distinct CKD subtypes with varying 5-year mortality risks, highest in the cardiometabolic subtype (43.3%) and lowest in the early-onset subtype (5.7%).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: