Differences between Very Highly Sensitized Kidney Transplant Recipients as Identified by Machine Learning Consensus Clustering
by
, , , , , , , , and
Charat Thongprayoon
1,†,
Jing Miao
1,†,
Caroline C. Jadlowiec
2,
Shennen A. Mao
3,
Michael A. Mao
4,
Pradeep Vaitla
5,
Napat Leeaphorn
4,
Wisit Kaewput
6
,
Pattharawin Pattharanitima
7,
Supawit Tangpanithandee
1
,
Pajaree Krisanapan
1,7
,
Pitchaphon Nissaisorakarn
8,
Matthew Cooper
9 and
Wisit Cheungpasitporn
1,*
1
Division of Nephrology and Hypertension, Department of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55905, USA
2
Division of Transplant Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ 85054, USA
3
Division of Transplant Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL 32224, USA
4
Division of Nephrology and Hypertension, Department of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL 32224, USA
5
Division of Nephrology, University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, MS 39216, USA
6
Department of Military and Community Medicine, Phramongkutklao College of Medicine, Bangkok 10400, Thailand
7
Department of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Thammasat University, Pathum Thani 12120, Thailand
8
Department of Medicine, Division of Nephrology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02114, USA
9
Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI 53226, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Medicina 2023, 59(5), 977; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/medicina59050977
Submission received: 5 March 2023
/
Revised: 10 May 2023
/
Accepted: 16 May 2023
/
Published: 18 May 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Clinical Studies, Big Data, and Artificial Intelligence in Medicine)
Abstract
:Background and Objectives: The aim of our study was to categorize very highly sensitized kidney transplant recipients with pre-transplant panel reactive antibody (PRA) ≥ 98% using an unsupervised machine learning approach as clinical outcomes for this population are inferior, despite receiving increased allocation priority. Identifying subgroups with higher risks for inferior outcomes is essential to guide individualized management strategies for these vulnerable recipients. Materials and Methods: To achieve this, we analyzed the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN)/United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) database from 2010 to 2019 and performed consensus cluster analysis based on the recipient-, donor-, and transplant-related characteristics in 7458 kidney transplant patients with pre-transplant PRA ≥ 98%. The key characteristics of each cluster were identified by calculating the standardized mean difference. The post-transplant outcomes were compared between the assigned clusters. Results: We identified two distinct clusters and compared the post-transplant outcomes among the assigned clusters of very highly sensitized kidney transplant patients. Cluster 1 patients were younger (median age 45 years), male predominant, and more likely to have previously undergone a kidney transplant, but had less diabetic kidney disease. Cluster 2 recipients were older (median 54 years), female predominant, and more likely to be undergoing a first-time transplant. While patient survival was comparable between the two clusters, cluster 1 had lower death-censored graft survival and higher acute rejection compared to cluster 2. Conclusions: The unsupervised machine learning approach categorized very highly sensitized kidney transplant patients into two clinically distinct clusters with differing post-transplant outcomes. A better understanding of these clinically distinct subgroups may assist the transplant community in developing individualized care strategies and improving the outcomes for very highly sensitized kidney transplant patients.
1. Introduction
Kidney transplantation is recognized as the most effective treatment for enhancing the quality of life and survival in patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) [1,2]. However, the waitlist for a kidney transplant can be lengthy or unproductive for highly sensitized patients who are unable to find an immunologically compatible donor [3]. Compared to unsensitized patients, highly sensitized kidney transplant recipients often have poorer allograft clinical outcomes and patient survival [4]. The production of alloantibodies against human leukocyte antigens (HLAs), generated through blood transfusions, previous transplants, infections, and pregnancy, causes sensitization. The panel reactive antibody (PRA) test is commonly used to determine the sensitization status of potential kidney transplant candidates, and those with a PRA of ≥80% are typically considered highly sensitized [5], and candidates with a PRA ≥ 98% are considered very highly sensitized and receive increased allocation priority [6]. Although approximately 30% of waitlist kidney transplant candidates are sensitized, only 6.5% receive a transplant each year [7]. In Europe, around 20% of patients waiting for a kidney transplant are sensitized, with 5% being highly sensitized [8].
Machine learning (ML) is an artificial intelligence subfield that can effectively analyze large datasets autonomously, and has been successfully applied in clinical medicine [9,10,11]. ML algorithms can be categorized into three main types: supervised learning (such as classification and regression), unsupervised learning (such as clustering, association, and dimensionality reduction), and reinforcement learning [12,13]. Consensus clustering is a technique in ML that merges the outcomes of various clustering algorithms to identify stable and robust clusters within a dataset [12,13]. It addresses the problem of instability and inconsistency in traditional clustering methods by forming a consensus partition that offers a more dependable and consistent clustering solution, capturing the fundamental data structure and lowering the risk of identifying false or unreliable clusters [12,13].
Kidney transplant recipients are a heterogeneous population with distinct underlying illnesses, genetic profiles, and immune responses. This variability can lead to inconsistent outcomes after transplantation, with some patients achieving exceptional graft functionality while others encounter issues such as rejection or allograft failure. Recent research has demonstrated unique subgroups identified by ML consensus clustering among solid organ transplant recipients such as the heart, kidney, and liver [14,15,16,17,18,19]. After identifying patient subgroups, researchers can assess the contrast in clinical results including graft survival, rejection rates, and infections among the various subgroups. This knowledge can guide clinical decision-making and help develop customized treatment plans for each patient based on their subgroup classification.
This cohort study aims to categorize very highly sensitized kidney transplant recipients with a PRA ≥ 98% based on comprehensive recipient-, donor-, and transplant-related variables using an unsupervised ML tool, and then assess post-transplant outcomes among the ML identified distinct clusters.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Data Source and Study Population
Data for this study were sourced from the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN)/United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) database for patients who underwent kidney transplants in the United States between 2010 and 2019. Very highly sensitized kidney transplant patients, defined as having pre-transplant PRA ≥ 98% [6], were included, while patients who received simultaneous kidney transplants with other organs were excluded. The Mayo Clinic Institutional Review Board (IRB number 21-007698) approved this study.
2.2. Data Collection
The OPTN/UNOS database contains patient-level data of all transplant events in the United States. The recipient-, donor-, and transplant-related variables, listed in Table 1, were abstracted from the OPTN/UNOS database to be included in the ML cluster analysis. All variables had less than 10% missing data (Table S1), and missing data were imputed using the multivariable imputation by the chained equation (MICE) method [20].
2.3. Clustering Analysis
In this study, the clinical phenotypes of very highly sensitized kidney transplant patients were categorized using an unsupervised ML technique called consensus clustering [21]. We utilized a standard subsampling parameter of 80%, with 100 iterations and a range of potential clusters from 2 to 10, to perform the consensus clustering analysis. This approach aimed to prevent generating an excessive number of clusters that would not have clinical significance. The optimal number of clusters was determined by assessing several metrics including the consensus matrix (CM) heat map, cumulative distribution function (CDF), cluster-consensus plots with within-cluster consensus scores, and the proportion of ambiguously clustered pairs (PAC). We used the within-cluster consensus score to evaluate the stability of each cluster. This score ranges from 0 to 1 and is defined as the average consensus value for all pairs of individuals belonging to the same cluster, with a score closer to 1 indicating better cluster stability. Additionally, we calculated the PAC as the proportion of all sample pairs, with consensus values falling within the predetermined boundaries. A value closer to 0 indicates better cluster stability [12]. For reproducibility, the detailed consensus cluster algorithms used in this study are available in the Supplementary Materials. The workflow of consensus clustering is shown in Figure 1.
2.4. Outcomes
The research investigated various outcomes in kidney transplant recipients such as patient death, death-censored graft failure at 1 and 5 years, and acute allograft rejection within one year of transplantation. Nevertheless, it is crucial to mention that the OPTN/UNOS registry merely offers information about whether allograft rejection happened within a year following the kidney transplant, without specifying the exact date of occurrence.
2.5. Statistical Analysis
We utilized the consensus clustering approach to categorize highly sensitized kidney transplant patients and compared their clinical characteristics and post-transplant outcomes among the assigned clusters. Categorical and continuous characteristics were compared using chi-squared tests and analysis of variance, respectively. To identify key characteristics of each cluster, we looked for a standardized mean difference of >0.3 compared to the overall cohort. We then used the Kaplan–Meier method to estimate cumulative risks of patient survival, death-censored graft survival, and overall graft survival following kidney transplant. The log-rank test was employed to compare the assigned clusters, while Cox proportional hazard regression was used to estimate hazard ratios for patient death, death-censored graft failure, and overall graft failure. Conversely, to compare the incidence of 1-year acute allograft rejection, we used the chi-squared test, and logistic regression was used to estimate the odds ratio. Statistical analyses were performed using R, version 4.0.3, with the Consensus-ClusterPlus package (version 1.46.0) utilized for consensus clustering analysis. This allowed us to determine the optimal number of clusters by examining the CM heat map, CDF, cluster-consensus plots with the within-cluster consensus scores, and the PAC. Finally, we used the MICE command in R for multivariable imputation by chained equation [20].
3. Results
Out of the 158,367 adult patients receiving kidney transplants from 2010 to 2019 in the United States, 7458 (4.7%) were very highly sensitized. Thus, we performed consensus clustering analysis in a total of 7458 very highly sensitized kidney transplant patients. Of these, 1081 (14%), 2129 (29%), and 4248 (57%) had a PRA of 98, 99, and 100%, respectively. Table 1 shows the recipient-, donor-, and transplant-related characteristics of the included patients.
Table 1.
Clinical characteristics according to clusters of very highly sensitized kidney transplant recipients.
Table 1.
Clinical characteristics according to clusters of very highly sensitized kidney transplant recipients.
| All (n = 7458) | Cluster 1 (n = 4105) | Cluster 2 (n = 3353) | p-Value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Recipient age (year), median (IQR) | 49 (39–58) | 45 (35–54) | 54 (45–62) | <0.001 |
| Recipient male sex | 2697 (36) | 2409 (59) | 288 (9) | <0.001 |
Recipient race
| 2979 (40) 2321 (31) 1486 (20) 672 (9) | 1803 (44) 1249 (30) 736 (18) 317 (8) | 1176 (35) 1072 (32) 750 (22) 355 (11) | <0.001 |
| Body mass index (kg/m2), median (IQR) | 26.7 (23.0–31.2) | 25.7 (22.5–30.0) | 28.0 (24.0–32.4) | <0.001 |
| Retransplant | 4139 (56) | 4032 (98) | 107 (3) | <0.001 |
Dialysis duration
| 713 (10) 644 (9) 2037 (27) 4064 (54) | 240 (6) 299 (7) 1098 (27) 2468 (60) | 473 (14) 345 (10) 939 (28) 1596 (48) | <0.001 |
Cause of end-stage kidney disease
| 1095 (15) 1072 (14) 1452 (19) 456 (6) 3383 (45) | 130 (3) 338 (8) 690 (17) 105 (3) 2842 (69) | 965 (29) 734 (22) 762 (23) 351 (10) 541 (16) | <0.001 |
Comorbidity
| 1858 (25) 602 (8) 532 (7) | 686 (17) 342 (8) 232 (6) | 1172 (35) 260 (8) 300 (9) | <0.001 0.363 <0.001 |
PRA (%)
| 1081 (15) 2129 (29) 4248 (57) | 449 (11) 1010 (25) 2646 (65) | 632 (19) 1119 (33) 1602 (48) | <0.001 |
| Positive HCV serostatus | 344 (5) | 193 (5) | 151 (5) | 0.685 |
| Positive HBs antigen | 101 (1) | 62 (2) | 39 (1) | 0.197 |
| Positive HIV serostatus | 28 (0) | 20 (0) | 8 (0) | 0.081 |
Functional status
| 8 (0) 3374 (45) 4076 (55) | 4 (0) 1761 (43) 2340 (57) | 4 (0) 1613 (48) 1736 (52) | <0.001 |
| Working income | 2227 (30) | 1361 (33) | 866 (26) | <0.001 |
| Public insurance | 5730 (77) | 3313 (81) | 2417 (72) | <0.001 |
| U.S. resident | 7368 (99) | 4078 (99) | 3290 (98) | <0.001 |
| Undergraduate education or above | 4035 (54) | 2338 (57) | 1697 (51) | <0.001 |
| Serum albumin (g/dL), mean (SD) | 3.9 ± 0.6 | 3.9 ± 0.6 | 3.9 ± 0.6 | 0.483 |
Kidney donor status
| 6508 (87) 384 (5) 566 (8) | 3633 (89) 185 (5) 287 (7) | 2875 (86) 199 (6) 279 (8) | 0.001 |
| ABO incompatibility | 13 (0) | 9 (0) | 4 (0) | 0.303 |
| Donor age (year), median (IQR) | 35 (24–47) | 33 (23–45) | 36 (25–47) | <0.001 |
| Donor male sex | 4528 (61) | 2549 (62) | 1979 (59) | 0.007 |
Donor race
| 4676 (63) 1158 (16) 1279 (17) 345 (5) | 2605 (63) 617 (15) 694 (17) 189 (5) | 2071 (62) 541 (16) 585 (17) 156 (5) | 0.454 |
| History of hypertension in donor | 1409 (19) | 712 (17) | 697 (21) | <0.001 |
KDPI
| 566 (8) 6759 (91) 133 (2) | 287 (7) 3764 (92) 54 (1) | 279 (8) 2995 (89) 79 (2) | <0.001 |
| HLA mismatch, median (IQR) | 3 (2–4) | 3 (1–4) | 3 (2–4) | <0.001 |
| Cold ischemia time (hour), median (IQR) | 18.5 (13.2–23.8) | 19.0 (13.9–24.1) | 17.8 (12.3–23.2) | <0.001 |
| Kidney on pump | 2123 (28) | 1146 (28) | 977 (29) | 0.245 |
| Delay graft function | 1900 (25) | 1248 (30) | 652 (19) | <0.001 |
Allocation type
| 2211 (30) 1729 (23) 3518 (47) | 1070 (26) 886 (22) 2149 (52) | 1141 (34) 843 (25) 1369 (41) | <0.001 |
EBV status
| 48 (1) 6734 (90) 676 (9) | 26 (1) 3713 (90) 366 (9) | 22 (1) 3021 (90) 310 (9) | 0.878 |
CMV status
| 841 (11) 2135 (29) 1085 (15) 3397 (46) | 508 (12) 1192 (29) 663 (16) 1742 (42) | 333 (10) 943 (28) 422 (13) 1655 (49) | <0.001 |
Induction immunosuppression
| 2432 (73) 1125 (15) 468 (6) 91 (1) 490 (7) | 3035 (74) 633 (15) 221 (5) 60 (1) 258 (6) | 2432 (73) 492 (15) 247 (7) 31 (1) 232 (7) | 0.173 0.370 <0.001 0.036 0.272 |
Maintenance Immunosuppression
| 6937 (93) 84 (1) 6972 (93) 17 (0) 35 (0) 5995 (80) | 3789 (92) 62 (2) 3806 (93) 8 (0) 21 (1) 3345 (81) | 3148 (94) 22 (1) 3166 (94) 9 (0) 14 (0) 2650 (79) | 0.008 0.001 0.003 0.508 0.554 0.008 |
Abbreviations: BMI: Body mass index, CMV: Cytomegalovirus, D: Donor, EBV: Epstein-Barr virus, ECD: Extended criteria donor, HBs: Hepatitis B surface, HCV: Hepatitis C virus, HIV: Human immunodeficiency virus, KDPI: Kidney donor profile index, mTOR: Mammalian target of rapamycin, PKD: Polycystic kidney disease, PRA: Panel reactive antibody, R: Recipient.
In Figure 2A, the CDF plot consensus distribution for each cluster of highly sensitized kidney transplant patients is displayed. The plot shows that the largest changes in the area occurred between k = 2 and k = 5 (Figure 2B), after which the relative increase in the area became smaller. Figure 2C and Supplementary Figures S1–S9 show the CM heat map, which indicates that the ML algorithm identified cluster 2 with clear boundaries, suggesting that the cluster is stable across repeated iterations. Figure 3A shows that the mean cluster consensus score was the highest in cluster 2, indicating greater cluster stability. Additionally, Figure 3B displays favorable low PAC for two clusters. Therefore, the consensus clustering analysis utilized baseline variables at the time of transplant to identify two clusters that best represented the data pattern of very highly sensitized kidney transplant recipients in this study.
3.1. Clinical Characteristics Based on Clusters of Very Highly Sensitized Kidney Transplant Patients
Two distinct clinical clusters were identified by the consensus clustering analysis, as illustrated in Table 1. Cluster 1 was composed of 4105 (55%) patients, while cluster 2 had 3353 (45%) patients. Figure 4 presents the primary features for each cluster, represented by the plot of standardized mean differences.
Cluster 1 patients were younger (median age 45 (IQR 35–54)), more likely male (59% vs. 9%), and more likely to be undergoing kidney re-transplantation (98% vs. 3%). In comparison, cluster 2 recipients were older (median age 54 (45–62) years), more likely to be female (91% vs. 41%), and more likely to be undergoing a first-time transplant (97% vs. 2%). Additionally, more patients in cluster 1 had a PRA of 100% (65% vs. 48%) and had greater than 3 years of dialysis time prior to undergoing transplant (60% vs. 48%). Recipients in cluster 1 also experienced longer cold ischemia time (median (IQR), 19 (13.9–24.1) vs. 17.8 (12.3–23.2) hours), and were more likely to have received a nationally allocated kidney (52% vs. 41%) in comparison to cluster 2.
3.2. Post-Transplant Outcomes Based on Clusters of Very Highly Sensitized Kidney Transplant Patients
Table 2 shows the cluster-based post-transplant outcomes. The 1-year and 5-year patient survival was 97.3% and 88.0% in cluster 1, and 97.1% and 86.5% in cluster 2, respectively (p = 0.19) (Figure 5A). The 1-year and 5-year death-censored graft survival was 96.3% and 84.4%% in cluster 1, and 97.6% and 85.5% in cluster 2, respectively (p = 0.006) (Figure 5B). Cluster 1 had lower death-censored graft survival compared to cluster 2 (HR 1.57, 95% CI 1.18–2.09 and HR 1.28, 95% CI 1.07–1.57 at 1 and 5 years, respectively). Cluster 1 had a higher incidence of acute rejection compared to cluster 2 (9.2% vs. 5.4%; p < 0.001).
4. Discussion
Inferior clinical outcomes have been observed in very highly sensitized kidney transplant recipients (PRA ≥ 98%). Factors contributing to these inferior outcomes are multifactorial and include variables both directly and indirectly linked to immunologic risk [1,8,22,23]. Using an unsupervised ML consensus clustering tool, we were able to categorize very highly sensitized kidney transplant recipients (PRA ≥ 98%) in the OPTN/UNOS database into two distinct clusters that demonstrated high stability. This study identified that the two distinct subtypes had different clinical outcomes, specifically in relation to acute rejection and death-censored graft failure.
Mechanisms for sensitization are likely to be different between the two clusters as the cluster 1 recipients were more likely to be male and undergoing re-transplantation while the cluster 2 recipients were more likely to be female and undergoing a first-time transplantation. The first cluster, cluster 1, was more likely to be composed of male recipients who were undergoing re-transplantation, and their immune system may have recognized the new transplanted organ as foreign and mounted a response against it, potentially leading to rejection. In contrast, the second cluster, cluster 2, was more likely to be composed of female recipients undergoing their first transplant. These individuals may have been sensitized by prior pregnancies, which can lead to the development of antibodies against the transplanted organ as foreign and lead to rejection. Additionally, more recipients in cluster 1 had a PRA of 100%, suggesting that their immune system had a high level of pre-existing antibodies due to the sensitizing events associated with their prior transplants, which could have led to the development of a more robust immune response. In summary, the two clusters of organ transplant recipients may have had different mechanisms for sensitization based on their gender, previous transplant history, or pregnancies, which could affect their likelihood of developing rejection after transplant.
Furthermore, cluster 1 recipients were also more likely to have had exposure to prior immunosuppression, which is associated with an increased risk of infection and malignancy, in addition to the risk of donor-specific antibody reactivation and antibody-mediated graft rejection. These cumulatively may have translated to cluster 1′s lower patient and graft survival [1,24,25,26,27]. It has been acknowledged that the mode of sensitization can predict graft survival. Sensitization due to prior pregnancies or transfusions has been found to increase the risk of graft loss by 23%, while re-transplantation increases the risk by 58% [28].
Recipients in cluster 1 had a higher likelihood of receiving dialysis for over three years before transplantation compared to those in cluster 2. This prolonged waiting time and dialysis vintage were likely contributors to cluster 1’s inferior long-term outcomes [29,30,31]. Prior research has indicated that patients who underwent preemptive transplants exhibited superior graft and patient survival rates than those with dialysis vintage durations of <5 years, 5–9 years, and ≥10 years [29]. Cold ischemia time was also found to be associated with a higher risk of delayed graft function; however, this effect was modest and had less impact than the kidney donor profile index (KDPI). Therefore, prolonged cold ischemia time alone should not be considered as a primary reason to decline transplantation [30]. Unexpectedly, cluster 1 recipients had less diabetes (17% vs. 35%, respectively) and diabetic-related ESKD (3% vs. 29%, respectively) compared to cluster 2. Of note, ESKD was caused by unknown factors in around 70% of cluster 1 patients compared to only 16% in cluster 2. Although more patients in cluster 2 had diabetes, improvements in diabetes care and the optimization of immunosuppressant therapy may contribute to their superior graft outcomes.
There has been a long-standing debate in the transplant community about the appropriate level of priority that should be given to highly sensitized patients. The current algorithm allocates kidneys based on the level of PRA, which some have argued gives too much weight to sensitization status. In the present study, the majority of kidney transplants in both clusters 1 and 2 were from standard KDPI non-ECD donors, indicating that these patients had access to good quality allografts. However, the transplant outcomes observed in highly sensitized patients were not as good as might be expected. Recent discussions about the development of a new kidney allocation framework have focused on decreasing the emphasis on PRA and providing more equitable access to kidney transplantation for patients on the waiting list. These discussions have been fueled in part by the findings of studies like this one, which highlight the need for a more nuanced approach to kidney allocation. Specifically, the study suggests that while PRA remains an important factor in determining priority for transplantation, other factors such as dialysis vintage and waiting time should also be taken into account [32]. Additionally, the study underscores the need for further exploration of the access and priority concerns for highly sensitized patients. Certain very highly sensitized patients received preemptive transplants while others did not, raising questions about the effectiveness of the current allocation system in addressing the diverse sensitization statuses of patients. A comprehensive kidney allocation framework that considers multiple factors such as PRA, waiting time, dialysis vintage, and access will be critical to ensuring equitable and unbiased access to kidney transplantation for all patients.
In this study, there were several limitations that should be acknowledged. First, due to the national registry’s limitations, details regarding graft rejection, graft failure, and patient death are lacking. Moreover, there might be missing data and loss of follow-up in patients, which could have led to the underestimation of outcomes. However, to minimize bias, we utilized the multivariable imputation by the chained equation strategy for missing data. Additionally, the OPTN/UNOS registry tends to underreport rejection events, so the reported rejection events in this study may not fully represent the immunologic risk events in highly sensitized patients. Finally, our outcomes are not reflective of highly sensitized patients who remain on the waitlist.
To our knowledge, this is the first ML clustering approach that has been successfully applied to very highly sensitized kidney transplant recipients (PRA ≥ 98%). The ML clustering algorithms allowed for the identification of two distinct subgroups without human intervention. The patients in cluster 2 had better outcomes regarding death-censored graft survival and acute rejection, indicating that highly sensitized kidney transplant recipients, even with a PRA of ≥98%, are a heterogeneous population. Consequently, this categorization could enable targeted interventions to improve outcomes. Furthermore, the different cluster distributions among the 11 OPTN/UNOS regions may facilitate the identification of future management strategies that incorporate geographical location to enhance outcomes for highly sensitized kidney transplant recipients.
While this study’s unsupervised ML clustering approach provides extensive insight into the various phenotypes of very highly sensitized kidney transplant recipients in the United States and their corresponding post-transplant outcomes, it is important to note that ML clustering algorithms have limitations in terms of directly generating risk predictions for individual cases. As such, future research should investigate the efficacy of supervised ML prediction models (such as neural network and extreme gradient boosting) utilizing labeled outcomes for the purpose of predicting graft loss and mortality in very highly sensitized kidney transplant recipients. These models should be compared against traditional prediction models and standard risk-adjusted outcomes to ascertain their predictive performances.
5. Conclusions
Our study successfully utilized an unsupervised ML consensus clustering tool to classify highly sensitized kidney transplant recipients in the OPTN/UNOS database into two subtypes with differing clinical outcomes, specifically acute rejection and death-censored graft loss. The results of our study demonstrate that consensus clustering is a viable and effective method for identifying patient subgroups with distinct clinical characteristics in very highly sensitized kidney transplant patients. By tailoring treatment plans based on subgroup membership, this approach may enhance the clinical outcomes and inform clinical decision-making.
Supplementary Materials
The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://0-www-mdpi-com.brum.beds.ac.uk/article/10.3390/medicina59050977/s1. Figure S1. Consensus matrix heat map (k = 2) depicting consensus values on a white to blue color scale of each cluster; Figure S2. Consensus matrix heat map (k = 3) depicting consensus values on a white to blue color scale of each cluster; Figure S3. Consensus matrix heat map (k = 4) depicting consensus values on a white to blue color scale of each cluster; Figure S4. Consensus matrix heat map (k = 5) depicting con-sensus values on a white to blue color scale of each cluster; Figure S5. Consensus matrix heat map (k = 6) depicting consensus values on a white to blue color scale of each cluster; Figure S6. Consensus matrix heat map (k = 7) depicting consensus values on a white to blue color scale of each cluster; Figure S7. Consensus matrix heat map (k = 8) depicting consensus values on a white to blue color scale of each cluster; Figure S8. Consensus matrix heat map (k = 9) depicting con-sensus values on a white to blue color scale of each cluster; Figure S9. Consensus matrix heat map (k = 10) depicting consensus values on a white to blue color scale of each cluster.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, C.T., J.M., C.C.J., S.A.M., M.A.M., P.V., N.L., W.K., P.P., S.T., P.K., P.N., M.C. and W.C.; Data curation, C.T., N.L. and W.C.; Formal analysis, C.T. and W.C.; Funding acquisition, W.C.; Investigation, C.T., J.M., C.C.J., P.V. and W.C.; Methodology, C.T., J.M., C.C.J., S.A.M., M.A.M. and W.C.; Project administration, J.M., C.C.J., M.A.M., N.L., W.K., P.P., P.K., P.N. and W.C.; Resources, N.L., S.T. and W.C.; Software, C.T. and W.C.; Supervision, S.A.M., M.A.M., P.V., W.K., P.P., M.C. and W.C.; Validation, C.T., N.L. and W.C.; Visualization, C.T. and W.C.; Writing—original draft, C.T., J.M., C.C.J. and W.C.; Writing—review & editing, C.T., J.M., C.C.J., S.A.M., N.L., S.T., P.K., P.N., M.C. and W.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement
This study was conducted in compliance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the Ethics Board of the Mayo Clinic (IRB ID: 21-007698). Approval Date: 8 October 2021.
Informed Consent Statement
As the study involved only observational chart review and had minimal risks, patient consent was waived.
Data Availability Statement
Upon reasonable request, the authors are willing to share the data.
Acknowledgments
The authors acknowledge the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network for providing the data. However, it should be noted that the interpretation and reporting of these data are solely the responsibility of the authors and should not be construed as an official policy or interpretation by the OPTN or the United States government.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors have no conflict of interest to disclose.
References
- De Sousa-Amorim, E.; Revuelta, I.; Blasco, M.; Diekmann, F.; Cid, J.; Lozano, M.; Sanchez-Escuredo, A.; Martorell, J.; Palou, E.; Campistol, J.M.; et al. Desensitization Before Living Donor Kidney Transplantation in Highly HLA-Sensitized Patients: A Single-Center Study. Transplant. Proc. 2015, 47, 2332–2335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abecassis, M.; Bartlett, S.T.; Collins, A.J.; Davis, C.L.; Delmonico, F.L.; Friedewald, J.J.; Hays, R.; Howard, A.; Jones, E.; Leichtman, A.B.; et al. Kidney transplantation as primary therapy for end-stage renal disease: A National Kidney Foundation/Kidney Disease Outcomes Quality Initiative (NKF/KDOQITM) conference. Clin. J. Am. Soc. Nephrol. 2008, 3, 471–480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mamode, N.; Bestard, O.; Claas, F.; Furian, L.; Griffin, S.; Legendre, C.; Pengel, L.; Naesens, M. European Guideline for the Management of Kidney Transplant Patients with HLA Antibodies: By the European Society for Organ Transplantation Working Group. Transpl. Int. 2022, 35, 10511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Dunn, T.B.; Noreen, H.; Gillingham, K.; Maurer, D.; Ozturk, O.G.; Pruett, T.L.; Bray, R.A.; Gebel, H.M.; Matas, A.J. Revisiting traditional risk factors for rejection and graft loss after kidney transplantation. Am. J. Transplant. 2011, 11, 2132–2143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Park, Y.; Ko, E.J.; Chung, B.H.; Yang, C.W. Kidney transplantation in highly sensitized recipients. Kidney Res. Clin. Pract. 2021, 40, 355–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bray, R.A.; Gebel, H.M. The new kidney allocation system (KAS) and the highly sensitized patient: Expect the unexpected. Am. J. Transplant. 2014, 14, 2917. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jordan, S.C.; Choi, J.; Vo, A. Kidney transplantation in highly sensitized patients. Br. Med. Bull. 2015, 114, 113–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Heidt, S.; Claas, F.H.J. Transplantation in highly sensitized patients: Challenges and recommendations. Expert. Rev. Clin. Immunol. 2018, 14, 673–679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Thongprayoon, C.; Kattah, A.G.; Mao, M.A.; Keddis, M.T.; Pattharanitima, P.; Vallabhajosyula, S.; Nissaisorakarn, V.; Erickson, S.B.; Dillon, J.J.; Garovic, V.D.; et al. Distinct phenotypes of hospitalized patients with hyperkalemia by machine learning consensus clustering and associated mortality risks. Qjm Int. J. Med. 2022, 115, 442–449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zheng, Z.; Waikar, S.S.; Schmidt, I.M.; Landis, J.R.; Hsu, C.Y.; Shafi, T.; Feldman, H.I.; Anderson, A.H.; Wilson, F.P.; Chen, J.; et al. Subtyping CKD Patients by Consensus Clustering: The Chronic Renal Insufficiency Cohort (CRIC) Study. J. Am. Soc. Nephrol. 2021, 32, 639–653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thongprayoon, C.; Kaewput, W.; Kovvuru, K.; Hansrivijit, P.; Kanduri, S.R.; Bathini, T.; Chewcharat, A.; Leeaphorn, N.; Gonzalez-Suarez, M.L.; Cheungpasitporn, W. Promises of Big Data and Artificial Intelligence in Nephrology and Transplantation. J. Clin. Med. 2020, 9, 1107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wilkerson, M.D.; Hayes, D.N. ConsensusClusterPlus: A class discovery tool with confidence assessments and item tracking. Bioinformatics 2010, 26, 1572–1573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- MacEachern, S.J.; Forkert, N.D. Machine learning for precision medicine. Genome 2021, 64, 416–425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kampaktsis, P.N.; Tzani, A.; Doulamis, I.P.; Moustakidis, S.; Drosou, A.; Diakos, N.; Drakos, S.G.; Briasoulis, A. State-of-the-art machine learning algorithms for the prediction of outcomes after contemporary heart transplantation: Results from the UNOS database. Clin. Transplant. 2021, 35, e14388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Killian, M.O.; Payrovnaziri, S.N.; Gupta, D.; Desai, D.; He, Z. Machine learning-based prediction of health outcomes in pediatric organ transplantation recipients. JAMIA Open 2021, 4, ooab008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ershoff, B.D.; Lee, C.K.; Wray, C.L.; Agopian, V.G.; Urban, G.; Baldi, P.; Cannesson, M. Training and Validation of Deep Neural Networks for the Prediction of 90-Day Post-Liver Transplant Mortality Using UNOS Registry Data. Transplant. Proc. 2020, 52, 246–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wadhwani, S.I.; Hsu, E.K.; Shaffer, M.L.; Anand, R.; Ng, V.L.; Bucuvalas, J.C. Predicting ideal outcome after pediatric liver transplantation: An exploratory study using machine learning analyses to leverage Studies of Pediatric Liver Transplantation Data. Pediatr. Transplant. 2019, 23, e13554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Schwantes, I.R.; Axelrod, D.A. Technology-Enabled Care and Artificial Intelligence in Kidney Transplantation. Curr. Transplant. Rep. 2021, 8, 235–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thongprayoon, C.; Vaitla, P.; Jadlowiec, C.C.; Leeaphorn, N.; Mao, S.A.; Mao, M.A.; Pattharanitima, P.; Bruminhent, J.; Khoury, N.J.; Garovic, V.D.; et al. Use of Machine Learning Consensus Clustering to Identify Distinct Subtypes of Black Kidney Transplant Recipients and Associated Outcomes. JAMA Surg. 2022, 157, e221286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- van Buuren, S.; Groothuis-Oudshoorn, K. mice: Multivariate Imputation by Chained Equations in R. J. Stat. Softw. 2011, 45, 1–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Monti, S.; Tamayo, P.; Mesirov, J.; Golub, T. Consensus Clustering: A Resampling-Based Method for Class Discovery and Visualization of Gene Expression Microarray Data. Mach. Learn. 2003, 52, 91–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Șenbabaoğlu, Y.; Michailidis, G.; Li, J.Z. Critical limitations of consensus clustering in class discovery. Sci. Rep. 2014, 4, 6207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, C.Y.; Yang, C.Y.; Lin, W.C.; Chen, C.C.; Tsai, M.K. Prognostic factors for renal transplant graft survival in a retrospective cohort of 1000 cases: The role of desensitization therapy. J. Formos. Med. Assoc. 2020, 119, 829–837. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grafals, M.; Chandraker, A. New approaches for desensitization strategies prior to kidney transplantation. Am. J. Kidney Dis. 2009, 53, 370–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Loupy, A.; Hill, G.S.; Jordan, S.C. The impact of donor-specific anti-HLA antibodies on late kidney allograft failure. Nat. Rev. Nephrol. 2012, 8, 348–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stegall, M.D.; Gloor, J.; Winters, J.L.; Moore, S.B.; Degoey, S. A comparison of plasmapheresis versus high-dose IVIG desensitization in renal allograft recipients with high levels of donor specific alloantibody. Am. J. Transplant. 2006, 6, 346–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lefaucheur, C.; Loupy, A.; Hill, G.S.; Andrade, J.; Nochy, D.; Antoine, C.; Gautreau, C.; Charron, D.; Glotz, D.; Suberbielle-Boissel, C. Preexisting donor-specific HLA antibodies predict outcome in kidney transplantation. J. Am. Soc. Nephrol. 2010, 21, 1398–1406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Redfield, R.R.; Scalea, J.R.; Zens, T.J.; Mandelbrot, D.A.; Leverson, G.; Kaufman, D.B.; Djamali, A. The mode of sensitization and its influence on allograft outcomes in highly sensitized kidney transplant recipients. Nephrol. Dial. Transplant. 2016, 31, 1746–1753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aufhauser, D.D., Jr.; Peng, A.W.; Murken, D.R.; Concors, S.J.; Abt, P.L.; Sawinski, D.; Bloom, R.D.; Reese, P.P.; Levine, M.H. Impact of prolonged dialysis prior to renal transplantation. Clin. Transplant. 2018, 32, e13260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lum, E.L.; Homkrailas, P.; Abdalla, B.; Danovitch, G.M.; Bunnapradist, S. Cold Ischemia Time, Kidney Donor Profile Index, and Kidney Transplant Outcomes: A Cohort Study. Kidney Med. 2023, 5, 100570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jackson, K.R.; Motter, J.D.; Kernodle, A.; Desai, N.; Thomas, A.G.; Massie, A.B.; Garonzik-Wang, J.M.; Segev, D.L. How do highly sensitized patients get kidney transplants in the United States? Trends over the last decade. Am. J. Transplant. 2020, 20, 2101–2112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Continuous Distribution—Kidney and Pancreas. Available online: https://optn.transplant.hrsa.gov/policies-bylaws/a-closer-look/continuous-distribution/continuous-distribution-kidney-and-pancreas/ (accessed on 19 February 2023).
Figure 1.
Workflow of consensus clustering. Abbreviations: OPTN: Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network, PRA: Panel reactive antibody, UNOS: United Network for Organ Sharing.
Figure 1.
Workflow of consensus clustering. Abbreviations: OPTN: Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network, PRA: Panel reactive antibody, UNOS: United Network for Organ Sharing.
Figure 2.
Displays three visual representations of the consensus clustering analysis for highly sensitized kidney transplant patients. Panel (A) shows a cumulative distribution function (CDF) plot, which displays the distribution of consensus values for each potential number of clusters (k) that were tested. Panel (B) shows a delta area plot, which represents the relative increase in the area under the CDF curve as the number of clusters increases from k = 2 to k = 10. Panel (C) shows a consensus matrix (CM) heat map, which depicts the consensus values for each pair of patients within each identified cluster, represented by shades of blue on a white-to-blue color scale.
Figure 2.
Displays three visual representations of the consensus clustering analysis for highly sensitized kidney transplant patients. Panel (A) shows a cumulative distribution function (CDF) plot, which displays the distribution of consensus values for each potential number of clusters (k) that were tested. Panel (B) shows a delta area plot, which represents the relative increase in the area under the CDF curve as the number of clusters increases from k = 2 to k = 10. Panel (C) shows a consensus matrix (CM) heat map, which depicts the consensus values for each pair of patients within each identified cluster, represented by shades of blue on a white-to-blue color scale.
Figure 3.
Displays two graphs. The first graph (A) is a bar plot that shows the mean consensus score for different numbers of clusters (k ranges from two to ten). Different colors indicate different cluster group. The second graph (B) depicts the PAC values that assess ambiguously clustered pairs.
Figure 3.
Displays two graphs. The first graph (A) is a bar plot that shows the mean consensus score for different numbers of clusters (k ranges from two to ten). Different colors indicate different cluster group. The second graph (B) depicts the PAC values that assess ambiguously clustered pairs.
Figure 4.
Displays a plot of the standardized mean differences, which identifies the clinical characteristics of each cluster.
Figure 4.
Displays a plot of the standardized mean differences, which identifies the clinical characteristics of each cluster.
Figure 5.
Displays the patient survival (A) and death-censored graft survival (B) outcomes for the two distinct clusters of very highly sensitized kidney transplant recipients identified by consensus clustering analysis.
Figure 5.
Displays the patient survival (A) and death-censored graft survival (B) outcomes for the two distinct clusters of very highly sensitized kidney transplant recipients identified by consensus clustering analysis.
Table 2.
Post-transplant outcomes according to the clusters.
| Cluster 1 | Cluster 2 | |
|---|---|---|
| 1-year survival | 97.3% | 97.1% |
| HR for 1-year death | 0.93 (0.69–1.24) | 1 (ref) |
| 5-year survival | 88.0% | 86.5% |
| HR for 5-year survival | 0.88 (0.73–1.06) | 1 (ref) |
| 1-year death-censored graft survival | 96.3% | 97.6% |
| HR for 1-year death-censored graft failure | 1.57 (1.18–2.09) | 1 (ref) |
| 5-year death-censored graft survival | 84.4% | 85.5% |
| HR for 5-year death-censored graft failure | 1.28 (1.07–1.54) | 1 (ref) |
| 1-year acute rejection | 9.2% | 5.4% |
| OR for 1-year acute rejection | 1.78 (1.48–2.14) | 1 (ref) |
Abbreviations: HR: hazard ratio; OR: odds ratio.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
MDPI and ACS Style
Thongprayoon, C.; Miao, J.; Jadlowiec, C.C.; Mao, S.A.; Mao, M.A.; Vaitla, P.; Leeaphorn, N.; Kaewput, W.; Pattharanitima, P.; Tangpanithandee, S.; et al. Differences between Very Highly Sensitized Kidney Transplant Recipients as Identified by Machine Learning Consensus Clustering. Medicina 2023, 59, 977. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/medicina59050977
AMA Style
Thongprayoon C, Miao J, Jadlowiec CC, Mao SA, Mao MA, Vaitla P, Leeaphorn N, Kaewput W, Pattharanitima P, Tangpanithandee S, et al. Differences between Very Highly Sensitized Kidney Transplant Recipients as Identified by Machine Learning Consensus Clustering. Medicina. 2023; 59(5):977. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/medicina59050977
Chicago/Turabian StyleThongprayoon, Charat, Jing Miao, Caroline C. Jadlowiec, Shennen A. Mao, Michael A. Mao, Pradeep Vaitla, Napat Leeaphorn, Wisit Kaewput, Pattharawin Pattharanitima, Supawit Tangpanithandee, and et al. 2023. "Differences between Very Highly Sensitized Kidney Transplant Recipients as Identified by Machine Learning Consensus Clustering" Medicina 59, no. 5: 977. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/medicina59050977
