The AI Agent in the Room: Informing Objective Decision Making at the Transplant Selection Committee
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Importance Transplantation is one of the few areas in medicine where the definitive treatment is rationed. Subjective decision-making pose challenges towards the transplant selection process. It has been proposed that large language models (LLMs) as artificial intelligent (AI) agents could provide objectivity in decision-making to solve complex problems. Objective To examine the performance of a multidisciplinary selection committee of AI agents (AI-SC) as a proof-of-concept towards objectivity in the liver transplant (LT) selection process. Design The AI-SC consisted of four LLMs: transplant hepatologist, transplant surgeon, cardiologist, and social worker. Zero-shot prompting with chain-of thought was used. Decisions were made based on clinicodemographic characteristics at time of waitlisting and LT. Setting National LT cohort. Participants Adult patients receiving deceased donor LT from 2004-2023 were extracted from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR) and clinical vignettes were generated. Standard absolute contraindications to LT were randomly assigned to a subset of patients to expose the AI-SC to cases of patients declined for LT. Exposures Clinicodemographic characteristics at waitlisting and transplantation. Main Outcomes and Measures The AI-SC’s accuracy with either: 1) listing candidates if LT would offer a 6-month or 1-year survival benefit or 2) declining candidates if contraindications to LT are present or if LT would not offer those survival benefits. Results Of 8,412 patients, 83.6% were waitlisted and 16.4% had contraindications to LT. The AI-SC was able to accurately identify contraindications to LT (accuracy: 98.2%, 95%CI 97.9%-98.4%), predict 6-month (94.9%, 95%CI 94.4%-95.3%) and 1-year (92.0%, 95%CI 91.4%-92.6%) survival. HCC burden beyond Milan criteria was the most common reason for accepted patients who were declined by AI-SC (False Negative). Malignancy was the most common cause of death prior to 6-month or 1-year end points (False Positive). The AI-SC most frequently did not perceive a lack of social support or severe cardiopulmonary disease as barriers to LT. Conclusions and Relevance LLMs can be leveraged to simulate the LT-SC meetings and provide accurate, objective insights on patients who may or may not benefit from LT. Lessons learned from this proof-of-concept are a provocative step towards making the LT selection process more equitable and objective. Key Points Question Can a multidisciplinary selection committee of artificial intelligence-based agents (AI-SC) accurately select liver transplant (LT) candidates based on potential survival benefit and contraindications to LT? Findings Clinical vignettes were generated from 8,412 LT candidates from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR). Of these, 16.4% were randomly assigned standard absolute contraindications to LT. The AI-SC (GPT-4, OpenAI) reviewed and selected LT candidates with accuracies of 98.2% in identifying contraindications to LT, 94.9% in predicting 6-month survival benefit, and 92.0% in predicting 1-year survival benefit. Meaning Multi-agent models may be leveraged to provide guidance towards objective decision-making in transplant candidacy.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,083 | 0,190 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,005 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,005 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,006 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».