Fig 1.
All ML models were cross-verified with 3 fold cross-validation.
Fig 2.
Enrollment of IgAN patients in our cohort.
Table 1.
Baseline cohort characteristics.
Fig 3.
Contribution of the included features of the combined event in IgAN patients.
HDL-C, High density lipoprotein cholesterol, LDL-C, Low density Lipoprotein cholesterol, TP, Total serum protein.
Table 2.
Predictors selected using random forest and the corresponding feature importance score.
Fig 4.
Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves of the three candidate models for the prognosis of IgAN.
AUC, area under the curve.
Fig 5.
Precision-recall curves of the three candidate models for the prognosis of IgAN.
Fig 6.
Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves of the three candidate models for the prognosis of IgAN without ’Crescent proportion’ and ’Global crescent proportion’.
Fig 7.
Precision-recall curves of the three candidate models for the prognosis of IgAN without ’Crescent proportion’ and ’Global crescent proportion’.
Table 3.
Summary of the comparison of IgAN with ’Crescent proportion’ and ’Global crescent proportion’ model performance.
Table 4.
Summary of the comparison of IgAN without ’Crescent proportion’ and ’Global crescent proportion’ model performance.
Fig 8.
The Lift curve with Support Vector Machine model.
“Class 0” indicates IgAN patients with none conbined endpoint progression, and “Class 1” indicates IgAN patients with the conbined endpoint progression.
Fig 9.
Calibration plots of the three candidate models for the prognosis of IgAN with ’Crescent proportion’ and ’Global crescent proportion’.
Fig 10.
Calibration plots of the three candidate models for the prognosis of IgAN without ’Crescent proportion’ and ’Global crescent proportion’.