Automated screening of potential organ donors using a temporal machine learning model.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Organ donation is not meeting demand, and yet 30-60% of potential donors are potentially not identified. Current systems rely on manual identification and referral to an Organ Donation Organization (ODO). We hypothesized that developing an automated screening system based on machine learning could reduce the proportion of missed potentially eligible organ donors. Using routine clinical data and laboratory time-series, we retrospectively developed and tested a neural network model to automatically identify potential organ donors. We first trained a convolutive autoencoder that learned from the longitudinal changes of over 100 types of laboratory results. We then added a deep neural network classifier. This model was compared to a simpler logistic regression model. We observed an AUROC of 0.966 (CI 0.949-0.981) for the neural network and 0.940 (0.908-0.969) for the logistic regression model. At a prespecified cutoff, sensitivity and specificity were similar between both models at 84% and 93%. Accuracy of the neural network model was robust across donor subgroups and remained stable in a prospective simulation, while the logistic regression model performance declined when applied to rarer subgroups and in the prospective simulation. Our findings support using machine learning models to help with the identification of potential organ donors using routinely collected clinical and laboratory data.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".