The promise of machine learning applications in solid organ transplantation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Solid-organ transplantation is a life-saving treatment for end-stage organ disease in highly selected patients. Alongside the tremendous progress in the last several decades, new challenges have emerged. The growing disparity between organ demand and supply requires optimal patient/donor selection and matching. Improvements in long-term graft and patient survival require data-driven diagnosis and management of post-transplant complications. The growing abundance of clinical, genetic, radiologic, and metabolic data in transplantation has led to increasing interest in applying machine-learning (ML) tools that can uncover hidden patterns in large datasets. ML algorithms have been applied in predictive modeling of waitlist mortality, donor-recipient matching, survival prediction, post-transplant complications diagnosis, and prediction, aiming to optimize immunosuppression and management. In this review, we provide insight into the various applications of ML in transplant medicine, why these were used to evaluate a specific clinical question, and the potential of ML to transform the care of transplant recipients. 36 articles were selected after a comprehensive search of the following databases: Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid MEDLINE Epub Ahead of Print and In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations; Ovid Embase; Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (Ovid); and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Ovid). In summary, these studies showed that ML techniques hold great potential to improve the outcome of transplant recipients. Future work is required to improve the interpretability of these algorithms, ensure generalizability through larger-scale external validation, and establishment of infrastructure to permit clinical integration.
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 | 0.015 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".