切换至 "中华医学电子期刊资源库"

中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志 ›› 2026, Vol. 15 ›› Issue (02) : 197 -204. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.2095-3232.2026.02.009

临床研究

基于不同机器学习技术构建肝移植术后早期严重并发症预测模型和效能比较
王小振, 陈灿辉, 唐善华, 代浩嘉, 丰扬舸, 王恺, 李清平, 李川江()   
  1. 510515 广州,南方医科大学南方医院肝胆外科
  • 收稿日期:2025-07-20 出版日期:2026-04-10
  • 通信作者: 李川江
  • 基金资助:
    广东省自然科学基金(2021A1515012146)

Construction and efficiency comparison of prediction models based on different machine learning technologies for early severe complications after liver transplantation

Xiaozhen Wang, Canhui Chen, Shanhua Tang, Haojia Dai, Yangge Feng, Kai Wang, Qingping Li, Chuanjiang Li()   

  1. Department of Hepatobiliary Surgery, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou 510515, China
  • Received:2025-07-20 Published:2026-04-10
  • Corresponding author: Chuanjiang Li
引用本文:

王小振, 陈灿辉, 唐善华, 代浩嘉, 丰扬舸, 王恺, 李清平, 李川江. 基于不同机器学习技术构建肝移植术后早期严重并发症预测模型和效能比较[J/OL]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2026, 15(02): 197-204.

Xiaozhen Wang, Canhui Chen, Shanhua Tang, Haojia Dai, Yangge Feng, Kai Wang, Qingping Li, Chuanjiang Li. Construction and efficiency comparison of prediction models based on different machine learning technologies for early severe complications after liver transplantation[J/OL]. Chinese Journal of Hepatic Surgery(Electronic Edition), 2026, 15(02): 197-204.

目的

探讨基于不同的机器学习技术构建肝移植术后发生早期严重并发症预测模型的效能。

方法

回顾性分析2018年7月至2024年8月在南方医科大学南方医院接受原位肝移植的129例患者临床资料。患者或家属签署知情同意书。其中男121例,女8例;年龄18~71岁,中位年龄51岁。根据Clavien-Dindo分级系统,将肝移植术后90 d内是否发生Ⅲb级及以上并发症的患者分为严重并发症组和非严重并发症组。使用归一化法对连续变量进行预处理,应用信息增益、Boruta算法和弹性网络分别做特征选择,纳入这些方法得到的结果中共有的因素,分别采取支持向量机、随机森林(RF)、逻辑回归、极端梯度提升和朴素贝叶斯5种机器学习技术,构建肝移植术后发生早期严重并发症的预测模型。采取十折交叉验证的方式计算不同机器学习算法的准确率、精确率、召回率、F1值和ROC AUC。在最优模型中使用沙普利可加性特征解释(SHAP)法评估预测模型中各特征因子的相对重要性。

结果

肝移植术后早期严重并发症的发生率为24.8%(32/129)。纳入术前控制营养状态(COUNT)评分、术前腰大肌厚度/身高值(PMTH)、术前MELD评分、手术无肝期时间和术中失血量5个特征因子输入机器学习模型。综合各项指标,RF预测模型平均效能较好,在召回率(0.844)和F1分数(0.866)上表现最佳,显示出其在实际应用中的优秀能力,在验证集中AUC、准确度、精确率分别为0.808、0.800、0.898。RF预测模型预测变量重要性可视化排序依次为术前COUNT评分、手术无肝期、术前MELD评分、术中失血量、PMTH。根据SHAP汇总图,术前COUNT评分、术中失血量、手术无肝期时间、术前MELD评分与术后早期严重并发症的发生呈正相关,而与术前PTMH呈负相关。

结论

本研究基于不同机器学习技术构建了多个肝移植术后发生早期严重并发症的预测模型,其中RF预测模型具有良好的预测性能,对探索肝移植患者围手术期管理具有一定意义。

Objective

To evaluate the efficiency of prediction models constructed based on different machine learning technologies for early severe complications after liver transplantation.

Methods

Clinical data of 129 patients undergoing orthotopic liver transplantation in Nanfang Hospital of Southern Medical University from July 2018 to August 2024 were retrospectively analyzed. The informed consents of all patients or family members were obtained. Among them, 121 patients were male and 8 female, aged from 18 to 71 years, with a median age of 51 years. According to Clavien-Dindo classification, all patients were divided into the severe and non-severe complication groups according to the incidence of Clavien-Dindo grade Ⅲb or above complications within 90 d after liver transplantation. Normalization method was used to preprocess continuous variables. Information gain, Boruta and elastic network were utilized for feature selection. Common factors in the methods and results were included. Five machine learning technologies, including support vector machine (SVM), random forest (RF), logistic regression (LR), eXtreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost) and naive Bayes, were adopted to construct prediction models for early severe complications after liver transplantation. The accuracy rate, precision rate, recall rate, F1 value and the area under the ROC curve (AUC) of different machine learning algorithms were calculated by ten-fold cross-validation. Shapley additive explanations (SHAP) was adopted in the optimal model to evaluate the relative importance of each feature in the prediction models.

Results

The incidence of early severe complications after liver transplantation was 24.8%(32/129). Five features including preoperative controlling nutritional status (COUNT) score, preoperative psoas muscle thickness per height (PMTH), preoperative MELD score, anhepatic phase and intraoperative blood loss, were input into machine learning models. Considering all indexes, the average efficiency of the RF prediction model was high and yielded the highest recall rate (0.844) and F1 score (0.866), demonstrating excellent capability in practical application. The average AUC, accuracy and precision rates in the validation set were 0.808, 0.800 and 0.898, respectively. The visual ranking of the importance of prediction variables in RF prediction models was: COUNT score, anhepatic phase, preoperative MELD score, intraoperative blood loss and PMTH, respectively. According to the SHAP, preoperative COUNT score, intraoperative blood loss, anhepatic phase and preoperative MELD score were positively correlated with, while preoperative PTMH value was negatively correlated with the incidence of early severe complications after liver transplantation.

Conclusions

Prediction models for early severe complications after liver transplantation are constructed based on different machine learning technologies. RF prediction model has high prediction performance, which is of certain significance to investigate perioperative management of liver transplantation recipients.

表1 两组肝移植患者一般资料比较
表2 基于不同机器学习技术构建肝移植术后早期严重并发症预测模型效能比较
图1 基于机器学习构建的5种肝移植术后早期严重并发症预测模型的ROC曲线 注:naive Bayes为朴素贝叶斯,SVM为支持向量机,RF为随机森林,LR为逻辑回归,XGBoost为极端梯度提升
图2 基于RF算法构建的肝移植术后早期严重并发症预测模型的特征重要性排序 注:RF为随机森林,COUNT为控制营养状态,PMTH为腰大肌厚度/身高值
图3 基于RF算法构建的肝移植术后早期严重并发症预测模型中变量的SHAP汇总图 注:红色表示特征值高,紫色表示特征值低;点越靠右,表示该特征对模型输出的正向影响越大;点越靠左,表示负向影响越大;RF为随机森林;PMTH为腰大肌厚度/身高值,COUNT为控制营养状态,SHAP为沙普利可加性特征解释
图4 基于SHAP方法的单个实例可解释性分析 注:E[f(x)] 为基准值,表示在没有任何特征信息时模型的预测值;SHAP为沙普利可加性特征解释
[1]
陶开山, 李霄. 中国肝移植术后并发症诊疗规范(2019版)[J/OL].  中华移植杂志(电子版), 2019, 13(4): 269-272.DOI: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-3903.2019.04.003.
[2]
Bertacco A, Barbieri S, Guastalla G, et al. Risk factors for early mortality in liver transplant patients[J]. Transplant Proc, 2019, 51(1): 179-183.DOI: 10.1016/j.transproceed.2018.06.025.
[3]
Azevedo LS, Stucchi RB, Ataíde ED, et al. Assessment of causes of early death after twenty years of liver transplantation[J]. Transplant Proc, 2013, 45(3): 1116-1118.DOI: 10.1016/j.transproceed.2013.02.015.
[4]
Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey[J]. Ann Surg, 2004, 240(2): 205-213.DOI: 10.1097/01.sla.0000133083.54934.ae.
[5]
Knaak M, Goldaracena N, Doyle A, et al. Donor BMI > 30 is not a contraindication for live liver donation[J]. Am J Transplant, 2017, 17(3): 754-760.DOI: 10.1111/ajt.14019.
[6]
Rangelova E, Blomberg J, Ansorge C, et al. Pancreas-preserving duodenectomy is a safe alternative to high-risk pancreatoduodenectomy for premalignant duodenal lesions[J]. J Gastrointest Surg, 2015, 19(3): 492-497.DOI: 10.1007/s11605-014-2738-3.
[7]
Leening MJG, Vedder MM, Witteman JCM, et al. Net reclassification improvement: computation, interpretation, and controversies: a literature review and clinician's guide[J]. Ann Intern Med, 2014, 160(2): 122-131.DOI: 10.7326/M13-1522.
[8]
Steyerberg EW, Vickers AJ, Cook NR, et al. Assessing the performance of prediction models: a framework for traditional and novel measures[J]. Epidemiology, 2010, 21(1): 128-138.DOI: 10.1097/EDE.0b013e3181c30fb2.
[9]
Van Calster B, McLernon DJ, van Smeden M, et al. Calibration: the Achilles heel of predictive analytics[J]. BMC Med, 2019, 17(1): 230.DOI: 10.1186/s12916-019-1466-7.
[10]
Song X, Liu X, Liu F, et al. Comparison of machine learning and logistic regression models in predicting acute kidney injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. Int J Med Inform, 2021, 151: 104484.DOI: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2021.104484.
[11]
徐瑾业, 周江晖, 刘生伟, 等. 机器学习模型在胸段食管鳞状细胞癌术后生存风险分层中的应用研究[J]. 中国胸心血管外科临床杂志, 2022, 29(12): 1574-1579.DOI: 10.7507/1007-4848.202205057.
[12]
Martínez JA, Alonso-Bernáldez M, Martínez-Urbistondo D, et al. Machine learning insights concerning inflammatory and liver-related risk comorbidities in non-communicable and viral diseases[J]. World J Gastroenterol, 2022, 28(44): 6230-6248.DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v28.i44.6230.
[13]
段钟平, 杨云生. 终末期肝病临床营养指南[J]. 实用肝脏病杂志, 2019, 22(5): 624-635.DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-5069.2019.05.005.
[14]
Cheung K, Lee SS, Raman M. Prevalence and mechanisms of malnutrition in patients with advanced liver disease, and nutrition management strategies[J]. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol, 2012, 10(2): 117-125.DOI: 10.1016/j.cgh.2011.08.016.
[15]
Salinas M, Flores E, Blasco A, et al. CONUT: a tool to assess nutritional status. First application in a primary care population[J]. Diagnosis, 2020, 8(3): 373-376.DOI: 10.1515/dx-2020-0073.
[16]
Narwal V, Deswal R, Batra B, et al. Cholesterol biosensors: a review[J]. Steroids, 2019, 143: 6-17.DOI: 10.1016/j.steroids.2018.12.003.
[17]
Ostroumov D, Fekete-Drimusz N, Saborowski M, et al. CD4 and CD8 T lymphocyte interplay in controlling tumor growth[J]. Cell Mol Life Sci, 2018, 75(4): 689-713.DOI: 10.1007/s00018-017-2686-7.
[18]
Fukushima K, Ueno Y, Kawagishi N, et al. The nutritional index ‘CONUT’ is useful for predicting long-term prognosis of patients with end-stage liver diseases[J]. Tohoku J Exp Med, 2011, 224(3): 215-219.DOI: 10.1620/tjem.224.215.
[19]
Harimoto N, Yoshizumi T, Sakata K, et al. Prognostic significance of preoperative controlling nutritional status (CONUT) score in patients undergoing hepatic resection for hepatocellular carcinoma[J]. World J Surg, 2017, 41(11): 2805-2812.DOI: 10.1007/s00268-017-4097-1.
[20]
侯建存, 郑虹, 强喆, 等. 腰大肌指数对肝移植早期预后及并发症的影响[J]. 中华外科杂志, 2018, 56(5): 374-378.DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.0529-5815.2018.05.010.
[21]
Saiman Y, Serper M. Frailty and sarcopenia in patients pre-and post-liver transplant[J]. Clin Liver Dis, 2021, 25(1): 35-51.DOI: 10.1016/j.cld.2020.08.004.
[22]
Giusto M, Lattanzi B, Albanese C, et al. Sarcopenia in liver cirrhosis: the role of computed tomography scan for the assessment of muscle mass compared with dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry and anthropometry[J]. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol, 2015, 27(3): 328-334.DOI: 10.1097/MEG.0000000000000274.
[23]
Gadducci A, Cosio S. The prognostic relevance of computed tomography-assessed skeletal muscle index and skeletal muscle radiation attenuation in patients with gynecological cancer[J]. Anticancer Res, 2021, 41(1): 9-20.DOI: 10.21873/anticanres.14747.
[24]
Huguet A, Latournerie M, Debry PH, et al. The psoas muscle transversal diameter predicts mortality in patients with cirrhosis on a waiting list for liver transplantation: a retrospective cohort study[J]. Nutrition, 2018, 51-52: 73-79.DOI: 10.1016/j.nut.2018.01.008.
[25]
Rana A, Petrowsky H, Hong JC, et al. Blood transfusion requirement during liver transplantation is an important risk factor for mortality[J]. J Am Coll Surg, 2013, 216(5): 902-907.DOI: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2012.12.047.
[26]
Pereboom ITA, de Boer MT, Haagsma EB, et al. Platelet transfusion during liver transplantation is associated with increased postoperative mortality due to acute lung injury[J]. Anesth Analg, 2009, 108(4): 1083-1091.DOI: 10.1213/ane.0b013e3181948a59.
[27]
Massicotte L, Carrier FM, Denault AY, et al. Development of a predictive model for blood transfusions and bleeding during liver transplantation: an observational cohort study[J]. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth, 2018, 32(4): 1722-1730.DOI: 10.1053/j.jvca.2017.10.011.
[28]
Massicotte L, Sassine MP, Lenis S, et al. Survival rate changes with transfusion of blood products during liver transplantation[J]. Can J Anaesth, 2005, 52(2): 148-155.DOI: 10.1007/BF03027720.
[29]
Clevenger B, Mallett SV. Transfusion and coagulation management in liver transplantation[J]. World J Gastroenterol, 2014, 20(20): 6146-6158.DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v20.i20.6146.
[30]
Carrier FM, Denault AY, Nozza A, et al. Association between intraoperative rotational thromboelastometry or conventional coagulation tests and bleeding in liver transplantation: an observational exploratory study[J]. Anaesth Crit Care Pain Med, 2020, 39(6): 765-770.DOI: 10.1016/j.accpm.2020.07.018.
[31]
Hartmann M, Szalai C, Saner FH. Hemostasis in liver transplantation: pathophysiology, monitoring, and treatment[J]. World J Gastroenterol, 2016, 22(4): 1541-1550.DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v22.i4.1541.
[32]
Said A, Williams J, Holden J, et al. Model for end stage liver disease score predicts mortality across a broad spectrum of liver disease[J]. J Hepatol, 2004, 40(6): 897-903.DOI: 10.1016/j.jhep.2004.02.010.
[33]
Yi NJ. See the reality again in the field of liver transplantation[J]. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol, 2024, 21(2): 74-75.DOI: 10.1038/s41575-023-00876-y.
[34]
Vabalas A, Gowen E, Poliakoff E, et al. Machine learning algorithm validation with a limited sample size[J]. PLoS One, 2019, 14(11): e0224365.DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0224365.
[1] 张颖, 赵筱卓, 程琳, 王艺雯, 王成, 杜伟力, 沈余明, 陈辉. 采用游离皮瓣修复胫骨远端骨外露创面的临床疗效及影响因素分析[J/OL]. 中华损伤与修复杂志(电子版), 2026, 21(01): 20-27.
[2] 吕思怡, 王琰琪, 仇珺, 陈宇江, 高洁. 人工智能图像处理技术在口腔医学中的应用[J/OL]. 中华口腔医学研究杂志(电子版), 2026, 20(01): 40-46.
[3] 李玮璇, 杜峻峰, 李世拥. 我国腹腔镜胃癌根治术主要并发症与处理[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2026, 20(02): 111-114.
[4] 樊伟伟, 许怀利, 杨喜佳. 中间入路与左侧前入路在中老年进展期胃癌腹腔镜根治术中的应用对比[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2026, 20(02): 117-120.
[5] 汝干, 翟春涛, 田昳程, 陈正荣. 腹腔镜下不同手术方式治疗cT1N0M0期胃癌的临床比较[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2026, 20(02): 134-137.
[6] 贺智恒, 姚德炯, 孙东方. 腹腔镜下胆囊切除术后胆瘘影响因素分析及风险预测模型的构建[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2026, 20(02): 175-178.
[7] 罗仲燃, 曾智豪, 黄梦娟, 何晓艺. 乳腺癌术后腋窝淋巴结负荷的多因素分析及预测模型的建立及验证[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2026, 20(01): 46-50.
[8] 邓瑞锋, 程璐, 刘远灵, 郑秋平, 刘溪, 江文聪, 江敏耀, 习明. 基于Logistic回归构建一期输尿管通路鞘置入失败的预测模型[J/OL]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2026, 20(02): 171-178.
[9] 霍颖钊, 刘创明, 梁任. 肾上腺术后肾上腺危象诊疗分析[J/OL]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2026, 20(01): 84-88.
[10] 麦吾兰江·麦麦提, 阿力娅·图拉丁, 吐尔洪江·吐逊. ABO血型不相容肝移植免疫抑制策略[J/OL]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2026, 15(02): 152-159.
[11] 邢颖, 王峰. 基于机器学习构建肝切除术后肝衰竭预测列线图模型及其预测价值[J/OL]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2026, 15(02): 190-196.
[12] 戴宗伯, 张城硕, 郭庭维, 何知远, 赵昊宇, 张宇慈, 张佳林. 基于MRI影像组学机器学习构建肝细胞癌微血管侵犯预测模型[J/OL]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2026, 15(01): 36-44.
[13] 王超, 张晓会, 李晓帆, 赵海丹. 维持性血液透析患者感染与心脑血管死亡风险的比较及联合预测模型构建[J/OL]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(09): 675-681.
[14] 郭岩, 赵灵芝, 石光英. 代谢相关脂肪性肝病患者发生冠心病的风险预测模型[J/OL]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(09): 682-688.
[15] 徐璐, 刘晶莹, 李梦莹, 黄菊, 谈慧颖. 肺癌患者胸腔镜术后肺部感染预测模型的构建与比较[J/OL]. 中华胸部外科电子杂志, 2026, 13(01): 49-55.
阅读次数
全文


摘要


AI


AI小编
你好!我是《中华医学电子期刊资源库》AI小编,有什么可以帮您的吗?