Comparison of baseline data
A total of 400 patients were randomly divided into training set and validation set in a ratio of 1:1. There was no significant difference in all variables between the two groups
(p > 0.05), indicating the random and reasonable nature of the data grouping (Table 1).
Table 1. Baseline characteristics in training set and validation set.
Variables
|
Training set (N1 = 200)
|
Validation set (N2 = 200)
|
P
|
CAL involvement, n (%)
|
|
|
|
no
|
116 (58)
|
115 (57.5)
|
1
|
yes
|
84 (42)
|
85 (42.5)
|
|
IVIG resistance, n (%)
|
|
|
|
no
|
174 (87)
|
177 (88)
|
0.76
|
yes
|
26 (13)
|
23 (12)
|
|
sex, n (%)
|
|
|
|
female
|
72 (36)
|
73 (36)
|
1
|
male
|
128 (64)
|
127 (64)
|
|
Age (years), median [IQR]
|
2.29 [1.25, 4.17]
|
2.25 [1.08, 3.92]
|
0.751
|
Fever date, median [IQR]
|
6 [5, 8]
|
6 [5, 7]
|
0.337
|
type, n [%]
|
|
|
|
Incomplete KD
|
96 [48]
|
94 [47]
|
0.92
|
Complete KD
|
104 [52]
|
106 [53]
|
|
WBC, median [IQR]
|
13.11 [8.79, 17.98]
|
12.99 [9.25, 16.67]
|
0.741
|
NEU, median [IQR]
|
7.74 [4.54, 11.95]
|
7.65 [4.78, 11.24]
|
0.775
|
NEU%, median [IQR]
|
62.15 [46.3, 75.05]
|
61.3 [48.1, 74.8]
|
0.98
|
LYM, median [IQR]
|
3.23 [2.27, 4.7]
|
3.41 [2.23, 4.59]
|
0.872
|
LYM%, median [IQR]
|
27.3 [17, 40.15]
|
27.4 [18.28, 38.95]
|
0.903
|
MON, median [IQR]
|
0.84 [0.58, 1.23]
|
0.88 [0.64, 1.27]
|
0.488
|
MON%, median [IQR]
|
6.8 [4.9, 8.72]
|
6.95 [5, 9]
|
0.381
|
EOS, median [IQR]
|
0.21 [0.03, 0.48]
|
0.2 [0.06, 0.46]
|
0.582
|
EOS%, median [IQR]
|
1.7 [0.2, 4.1]
|
1.65 [0.48, 4]
|
0.566
|
BAS, median [IQR]
|
0.02 [0.01, 0.04]
|
0.02 [0.01, 0.04]
|
0.935
|
BSA%, median [IQR]
|
0.2 [0.1, 0.3]
|
0.2 [0.1, 0.3]
|
0.8
|
HB, median [IQR]
|
113.5 [106.75, 121]
|
113 [103.75, 118]
|
0.155
|
MCV, median [IQR]
|
82.25 [79.3, 85]
|
81.9 [78.88, 84.43]
|
0.386
|
HCT, median [IQR]
|
34.05 [30.8, 36.4]
|
33.2 [30.67, 35.42]
|
0.248
|
MPV, median [IQR]
|
8.7 [8.1, 9.6]
|
8.9 [8.1, 9.7]
|
0.279
|
PLT, median [IQR]
|
400 [300.25, 513.5]
|
396.5 [318.75, 497.75]
|
0.81
|
CRP, median [IQR]
|
44.28 [20.43, 84.9]
|
42.74 [22.14, 88.59]
|
0.41
|
ESR, median [IQR]
|
72 [49, 91]
|
79 [55.75, 98]
|
0.096
|
NLR, median [IQR]
|
2.33 [1.14, 4.35]
|
2.21 [1.25, 4.12]
|
0.93
|
PLR, median [IQR]
|
117.93 [86.49, 189.7]
|
123.1 [85.7, 170.77]
|
0.744
|
CAR, median [IQR]
|
1.23 [0.57, 2.33]
|
1.22 [0.59, 2.45]
|
0.351
|
LMR, median [IQR]
|
4.15 [2.63, 5.54]
|
3.97 [2.76, 5.24]
|
0.331
|
ALT, median [IQR]
|
20 [11, 42.25]
|
18 [11, 45.25]
|
0.911
|
AST, median [IQR]
|
23 [20, 29.25]
|
25 [20, 33]
|
0.126
|
GGT, median [IQR]
|
22 [13, 57]
|
19 [11.75, 65.5]
|
0.669
|
TB, median [IQR]
|
4.25 [3.1, 6.03]
|
4.7 [3.3, 7.53]
|
0.079
|
ALB, median [IQR]
|
36.7 [33.08, 39.82]
|
36.05 [33.3, 39.6]
|
0.616
|
HDL-C, median [IQR]
|
0.82 [0.57, 1.23]
|
0.83 [0.62, 1.23]
|
0.587
|
MHR, median [IQR]
|
1.01 [0.69, 1.43]
|
0.98 [0.74, 1.41]
|
0.957
|
LDH, median [IQR]
|
282.5 [241.75, 337.25]
|
291.5 [253.75, 346.25]
|
0.378
|
LAR, median [IQR]
|
7.78 [6.61, 9.36]
|
8.07 [6.71, 9.71]
|
0.289
|
Screening of characteristic factors for risk of IVIG resistance
Lasso regression was conducted to screen parameters. The coefficient variation features of these variables are shown in Fig. 1a and the Lasso model of parameters iterative analysis using 20-fold cross-validation method is depicted in Fig. 1b. The results showed that the 35 variables were reduced to 22 (lambda with minimum mean square error = 0.004) and then to 4 (lambda with one standard error of the minimum distance = 0.042). The 4 variables screened when lambda was 0.042 included NEU%, MON%, HDL-C and MHR. The 4 characteristic factors were used to construct the Logistic regression model in training set, and ultimately, only NEU%, HDL-C and MHR were determined as significant predictors (p < 0.05) of IVIG resistance for the final model, as shown in Table 2.
Development of the predictive nomogram of IVIG resistance
For more convenient clinical application, we constructed a nomogram for predicting IVIG resistance in KD using the screened three optimal predictor factors, as illustrated in Fig. 1c. In this nomogram, the varying values for the three variables correspond to their respective scores, and the total score is calculated by adding up the individual scores of the three variables. The bottom of Fig. 1c provides the prediction probabilities of IVIG resistance corresponding to different total scores. The higher the total score, the greater the probability of occurring IVIG resistance. For example, if a KD child has clinical data showing NEU% at 70, HDL-C at 0.8 mmol/L and MHR at 3, the corresponding score of each variable would be 25, 75 and 30, respectively, resulting in a total score of 130. Thus, the child would have approximately a 50% probability of experiencing IVIG resistance.
Table 2. Multivariate logistic regression analysis for IVIG resistance.
Variable
|
R
|
SE
|
Z
|
Pr(>|Z|)
|
NEU%
|
0.0404
|
0.0193
|
2.09
|
0.0363
|
MON%
|
-0.0804
|
0.1489
|
-0.54
|
0.5894
|
HDL-C
|
-4.2897
|
1.3819
|
-3.1
|
0.0019
|
MHR
|
1.2088
|
0.5899
|
2.05
|
0.0405
|
Intercept
|
-2.5077
|
1.7048
|
-1.47
|
0.1413
|
R, regression coefficient; SE, Standard error.
Performance and internal validation of the nomogram
The C-index of the nomogram in the training set and validation set was 0.886 and 0.855, respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of the training set were 0.846 and 0.770, respectively (Fig. 2a). The DCA showed exceedingly better net benefits in the predictive model (Fig. 2b). Furthermore, the calibration curves for both sets displayed bias-correction and an apparent curve that closely resembled the ideal line (Fig. 2c and Fig. 2d), indicating that the observed and predicted levels of IVIG resistance were in good agreement. These data indicate that our nomogram for predicting IVIG resistance in KD demonstrated good discrimination, calibration, clinical applicability, and generalization, making it a valuable tool for clinical decision-making.
Screening of characteristic factors for risk of CAL involvement
We used Lasso regression to screen the parameters. Fig. 3a displayed the coefficient variation features of these variables, and Fig. 3b displayed the Lasso model of parameters iterative analysis using the 20-fold cross-validation method. The total number of variables were reduced from 35 to 16 (lambda with minimum mean square error = 0.008) and then to 6 (lambda with one standard error of the minimum distance = 0.040). The 6 variables obtained with a lambda of 0.040 included sex, fever date before the first IVIG administration, clinical type, HCT, HDL-C and MHR. Excluding HCT due to p>0.05, we used the remaining 5 characteristic factors to construct the Logistic regression model in training set, as shown in Table 3.
Development of the predictive nomogram of CAL involvement
By the screened 5 optimal predictors, we conducted a nomogram for predicting CAL involvement in KD for more convenient clinical practice, as illustrated in Fig. 3c. Each option of each variable corresponds to a specific point, and the total point is obtained by summing the points of all 5 variables. Different predictive probabilities corresponding to various total points are given at the bottom of the figure. For each child, higher total points indicate a higher risk of developing CAL.
Table 3. Multivariate logistic regression analysis for CAL involvement.
variable
|
R
|
SE
|
Z
|
Pr(>|Z|)
|
sex
|
1.0268
|
0.4809
|
2.14
|
0.0327
|
fever date
|
0.21
|
0.0747
|
2.84
|
0.0045
|
type
|
-1.2942
|
0.4482
|
-2.89
|
0.0039
|
HCT
|
-0.1068
|
0.0549
|
-1.94
|
0.0518
|
HDL-C
|
-2.0128
|
0.566
|
-3.56
|
0.0004
|
MHR
|
3.1828
|
0.5705
|
5.58
|
<0.0001
|
Intercept
|
0.0229
|
2.0878
|
0.01
|
0.9912
|
Performance and internal validation of the nomogram
The C-indexes of the nomogram were 0.915 and 0.866 for the training set and validation set, respectively. In the training set, the sensitivity and specificity were 0.786 and 0.931, respectively (Fig. 4a). In the predicted model, the DCA demonstrated greater net benefits (Fig. 4b). The observed and expected levels of CAL involvement also coincided well, as shown by the calibration curves in both sets (Fig. 4c and Fig. 4d). Above data indicate that our nomogram has substantial potential for clinical decision-making.
Comparison with existed models
We assessed the performance of three existed risk scores in predicting IVIG resistance (Table 4A) and CAL involvement (Table 4B) for each patient in validation set, respectively. The numbers of children in the high-risk and low-risk categories, along with the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (PPV), AUC and 95% confidence interval (95%CI) of each model were calculated. Among IVIG resistance scoring systems, the Sano scoring system 10 had the highest sensitivity, but its specificity was extremely low. The Egami 9 and Wu 7 scoring systems exhibited relatively higher specificity but lower sensitivity. The AUCs of these three scoring systems for predicting IVIG-resistance were all low, ranging from 0.482 to 0.627. For CAL involvement scoring systems 6,9,13, the sensitivity was below 0.5 for all, with the Egami score 9 having the highest specificity, while the specificity of the other two scores was comparable. The AUCs of the three scoring systems were similar, ranging from 0.508 to 0.561. These results above indicate that the existing scoring systems showed poor performance in our population.
Table 4a Prediction score models in patients with IVIG resistance
Prediction models
|
Category
|
Response to IVIG
|
Sensitivity
|
Specificity
|
PPV
|
NPV
|
AUC
|
95%CI
|
Resistant
|
Responsive
|
Sano score
|
High risk
|
21
|
168
|
0.913
|
0.051
|
0.111
|
0.818
|
0.482
|
0.4209-0.543
|
Low risk
|
2
|
9
|
Egami score
|
High risk
|
10
|
32
|
0.435
|
0.819
|
0.238
|
0.918
|
0.627
|
0.5196-0.7344
|
Low risk
|
13
|
145
|
Wu
score
|
High risk
|
10
|
43
|
0.435
|
0.757
|
0.189
|
0.912
|
0.596
|
0.4876-0.7042
|
Low risk
|
13
|
134
|
Table 4b Prediction score models in patients with CAL involvement
Prediction models
|
Category
|
CAL involvement
|
Sensitivity
|
Specificity
|
PPV
|
NPV
|
AUC
|
95%CI
|
CAL+
|
CAL-
|
Tawai
score
|
High risk
|
28
|
36
|
0.329
|
0.687
|
0.438
|
0.581
|
0.508
|
0.4423-0.574
|
Low risk
|
57
|
79
|
Egami
score
|
High risk
|
19
|
23
|
0.224
|
0.8
|
0.452
|
0.582
|
0.512
|
0.454-0.5695
|
Low risk
|
66
|
92
|
Zhe jiang score
|
High risk
|
40
|
40
|
0.471
|
0.652
|
0.5
|
0.625
|
0.561
|
0.4924-0.6304
|
Low risk
|
45
|
75
|