MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3154550454 · doi:10.1016/s2589-7500(21)00040-6

Long-term mortality risk stratification of liver transplant recipients: real-time application of deep learning algorithms on longitudinal data

2021· article· en· W3154550454 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Osvald Nitski, Amirhossein Azhie, Fakhar Ali Qazi Arisar, Xueqi Wang, Shihao Ma, Leslie Lilly, Kymberly D. Watt, Josh Levitsky, Sumeet K. Asrani, Douglas S. Lee, Barry B. Rubin, Mamatha Bhat, Bo Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Lancet Digital Health · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRenal Transplantation Outcomes and Treatments
Canadian institutionsVector InstituteTed Rogers Centre for Heart ResearchInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesToronto Rehabilitation InstituteToronto General HospitalUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
FundersCanadian Liver FoundationCanadian Institute for Advanced ResearchToronto General and Western Hospital FoundationAmerican Society of Transplantation
KeywordsLogistic regressionMedicineReceiver operating characteristicLiver transplantationMachine learningArtificial intelligenceTransplantationAlgorithmInternal medicineComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Survival of liver transplant recipients beyond 1 year since transplantation is compromised by an increased risk of cancer, cardiovascular events, infection, and graft failure. Few clinical tools are available to identify patients at risk of these complications, which would flag them for screening tests and potentially life-saving interventions. In this retrospective analysis, we aimed to assess the ability of deep learning algorithms of longitudinal data from two prospective cohorts to predict complications resulting in death after liver transplantation over multiple timeframes, compared with logistic regression models. METHODS: In this machine learning analysis, model development was done on a set of 42 146 liver transplant recipients (mean age 48·6 years [SD 17·3]; 17 196 [40·8%] women) from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR) in the USA. Transferability of the model was further evaluated by fine-tuning on a dataset from the University Health Network (UHN) in Canada (n=3269; mean age 52·5 years [11·1]; 1079 [33·0%] women). The primary outcome was cause of death, as recorded in the databases, due to cardiovascular causes, infection, graft failure, or cancer, within 1 year and 5 years of each follow-up examination after transplantation. We compared the performance of four deep learning models against logistic regression, assessing performance using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC). FINDINGS: In both datasets, deep learning models outperformed logistic regression, with the Transformer model achieving the highest AUROCs in both datasets (p<0·0001). The AUROC for the Transformer model across all outcomes in the SRTR dataset was 0·804 (99% CI 0·795-0·854) for 1-year predictions and 0·733 (0·729-0·769) for 5-year predictions. In the UHN dataset, the AUROC for the top-performing deep learning model was 0·807 (0·795-0·842) for 1-year predictions and 0·722 (0·705-0·764) for 5-year predictions. AUROCs ranged from 0·695 (0·680-0·713) for prediction of death from infection within 5 years to 0·859 (0·847-0·871) for prediction of death by graft failure within 1 year. INTERPRETATION: Deep learning algorithms can incorporate longitudinal information to continuously predict long-term outcomes after liver transplantation, outperforming logistic regression models. Physicians could use these algorithms at routine follow-up visits to identify liver transplant recipients at risk for adverse outcomes and prevent these complications by modifying management based on ranked features. FUNDING: Canadian Donation and Transplant Research Program, CIFAR AI Chairs Program.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.083
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.289 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations106
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Lancet Digital HealthSame topicRenal Transplantation Outcomes and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207