Health and Technology

, Volume 9, Issue 5, pp 847–856 | Cite as

A new proposed feature selection method to predict kidney transplantation outcome

  • Dalia M. AtallahEmail author
  • Mohammed Badawy
  • Ayman El-Sayed
Original Paper


Kidney transplantation graft survival prediction is important because of the difficulty of finding the organs. The exact prediction of kidney transplantation outcome is still not accurate even with the enhancements in acute rejection results. Machine learning methods introduce many ways to solve the kidney transplantation prediction problem than that of other methods. The power of any prediction method relies on the choosing of the proper variables. Feature selection is one of the important preprocessing procedures. It is the method that selects the minimal suitable variables that introduced in a set of features. This paper introduced a new proposed feature selection method that combines statistical methods with classification procedures of data mining technology to predict the probability of graft survival after kidney transplantation. Univariate analysis using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis method combined with Naïve Bayes classifier was used to specify the significant variables. Three data mining tools, namely naïve Bayes, decision tree and K-nearest neighbor classifiers were utilized to examine the instances of kidney transplantation, and their accuracy was compared with using the new proposed feature selection method and without using it. Experimental results have presented that the new proposed feature selection method have better results than other techniques.


Kidney transplantation Feature selection Naïve Bayes Decision tree K-nearest neighbor Data mining Survival analysis 


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.


  1. 1.
    Sherwood L. Human physiology: from cells to systems. Cengage Learning. 2015.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Levey AS, Coresh J, Balk E, Kausz AT, Levin A, Steffes MW, et al. National Kidney Foundation practice guidelines for chronic kidney disease: evaluation, classification, and stratification. Ann Intern Med. 2003;139(2):137–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Patel S, Cassuto J, Orloff M, Tsoulfas G, Zand M, Kashyap R, et al. Minimizing morbidity of organ donation: analysis of factors for perioperative complications after living-donor nephrectomy in the United States. Transplantation. 2008;85(4):561–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wolfe RA, Ashby VB, Milford EL, Ojo AO, Ettenger RE, Agodoa LY, et al. Comparison of mortality in all patients on dialysis, patients on dialysis awaiting transplantation, and recipients of a first cadaveric transplant. N Engl J Med. 1999;341(23):1725–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Remuzzi G, Grinyo J, Ruggenenti P, Beatini M, Cole EH, Milford EL, et al. Early experience with dual kidney transplantation in adults using expanded donor criteria. J Am Soc Nephrol. 1999;10(12):2591–8.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Abaei G, Selamat A. A survey on software fault detection based on different prediction approaches. Vietnam Journal of Computer Science. 2014;1(2):79–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Djavan B, Remzi M, Zlotta A, Seitz C, Snow P, Marberger M. Novel artificial neural network for early detection of prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2002;20(4):921–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kattan MW. Comparison of Cox regression with other methods for determining prediction models and nomograms. J Urol. 2003;170(6):S6–S10.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Grossberg JA, Reinert SE, Monaco AP, Gohh R, Morrissey PE. Utility of a mathematical nomogram to predict delayed graft function: a single-center experience. Transplantation. 2006;81(2):155–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Delen D, Walker G, Kadam A. Predicting breast cancer survivability: a comparison of three data mining methods. Artif Intell Med. 2005;34(2):113–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ture M, Kurt I, Kurum AT, Ozdamar K. Comparing classification techniques for predicting essential hypertension. Expert Syst Appl. 2005;29(3):583–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kusiak A, Dixon B, Shah S. Predicting survival time for kidney dialysis patients: a data mining approach. Comput Biol Med. 2005;35(4):311–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Krikov S, Khan A, Baird BC, Barenbaum LL, Leviatov A, Koford JK, et al. Predicting kidney transplant survival using tree-based modeling. ASAIO J. 2007;53(5):592–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Taft L, Evans RS, Shyu C, Egger M, Chawla N, Mitchell J, et al. Countering imbalanced datasets to improve adverse drug event predictive models in labor and delivery. J Biomed Inform. 2009;42(2):356–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Oztekin A, Delen D, Kong ZJ. Predicting the graft survival for heart–lung transplantation patients: An integrated data mining methodology. Int J Med Inform. 2009;78(12):e84–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wang Y, Simon M, Bonde P, Harris BU, Teuteberg JJ, Kormos RL, et al. Prognosis of right ventricular failure in patients with left ventricular assist device based on decision tree with SMOTE. IEEE Trans Inf Technol Biomed. 2012;16(3):383–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Brown TS, Elster EA, Stevens K, Graybill JC, Gillern S, Phinney S, et al. Bayesian modeling of pretransplant variables accurately predicts kidney graft survival. Am J Nephrol. 2012;36(6):561–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dag A, Oztekin A, Yucel A, Bulur S, Megahed FM. Predicting heart transplantation outcomes through data analytics. Decis Support Syst. 2017;94:42–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Oztekin A, Al-Ebbini L, Sevkli Z, Delen D. A decision analytic approach to predicting quality of life for lung transplant recipients: A hybrid genetic algorithms-based methodology. Eur J Oper Res. 2018;266(2):639–51.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Atallah DM, Badawy M, El-Sayed A, Ghoneim MA. Predicting kidney transplantation outcome based on hybrid feature selection and KNN classifier. Multimed Tools Appl. 2019;78(14):20383–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Han J, Pei J, Kamber M. Data mining: concepts and techniques. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2011.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Friedman N, Geiger D, Goldszmidt M. Bayesian network classifiers. Mach Learn. 1997;29(2-3):131–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Nakayama N, Oketani M, Kawamura Y, Inao M, Nagoshi S, Fujiwara K, et al. Algorithm to determine the outcome of patients with acute liver failure: a data-mining analysis using decision trees. J Gastroenterol. 2012;47(6):664–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Breiman L, Friedman J, Olshen R, Stone C. Classification and regression trees. Wadsworth Int Group. 1984;37(15):237–51.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Koyuncugil AS, Ozgulbas N. Detecting road maps for capacity utilization decisions by clustering analysis and CHAID decision trees. J Med Syst. 2010;34(4):459–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Cabena P, Hadjinian P, Stadler R, Verhees J, Zanasi A. IBMC et al. Discovering data mining: from concept to implementation. Prentice Hall PTR: Upper Saddle River; 1997.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Norusis M. SPSS 16.0 advanced statistical procedures companion. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall Press; 2008.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IUPESM and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dalia M. Atallah
    • 1
    Email author
  • Mohammed Badawy
    • 2
  • Ayman El-Sayed
    • 2
  1. 1.Urology & Nephrology CenterMansoura UniversityMansouraEgypt
  2. 2.Computer Science & Engineering Department, Faculty of Electronic EngineeringMenoufia UniversityMenoufEgypt

Personalised recommendations