Long-term mortality risk stratification of liver transplant recipients: real-time application of deep learning algorithms on longitudinal data
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it