Abstract

Background: Cox proportional hazard models have long been the model of choice for survival prediction after kidney transplantation. In recent years, a variety of novel model types have been proposed. We investigate the prediction performance across different model types, including machine learning models and traditional model types. Methods: A systematic review was conducted following PROBAST and CHARMS, also considering extensions to TRIPOD+AI and PROBAST+AI, for data collection and risk of bias assessment. The review only included publications that reported on prediction performance for models of different types. A comparative analysis tested performance differences between the model types. Results: The review included 37 publications which presented 134 comparative studies. The designs of many studies left room for improvement and most studies had high risk of bias. The collected data admitted testing of performance differences for 22 pairs of model types, ten of which yielded significant differences. Support Vector Machines and Logistic Regression were never found to outperform other model types. Other comparisons, however, provide inconclusive comparative performance results and none of the model types performed consistently and significantly better than alternatives. Conclusions: Rigorous review of current evidence and comparative performance evidence finds no significant kidney transplant survival prediction performance differences that Cox Proportional Hazard models are being outperformed. The design of many of the studies implies high risk of bias and more and better designed studies which reutilize best performing models are needed. This enables to resolve model biases, reporting issues, and to increase the power of comparative performance analysis.