Perspective of a Pathologist on Benchmark Strategies for Artificial Intelligence Development in Organ Transplantation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Transplant pathology of donors is a highly specialized field comprising both the evaluation of organ donor biopsy for the oncological risk transmission and to guide the organ allocation. Timing is critical in transplant procurement since organs must be recovered as soon as possible to ensure the best possible outcome for the recipient. To all this is added the fact that the evaluation of a donor causes difficulties in many cases and the impact of these assessments is paramount, considering the possible recovery of organs that would have been erroneously discarded or, conversely, the possibly correct discarding of donors with unacceptable risk profiles. In transplant pathology histology is still the gold standard for diagnosis dictating the subsequent decisions and course of clinical care. Digital pathology has played an important role in accelerating healthcare progression and nowadays artificial intelligence powered computational pathology can effectively improve diagnostic needs, supporting the quality and safety of the process. Mapping the shape of the journey would suggest a progressive approach from supervised to semi/unsupervised models, which would involve training these models directly for clinical endpoints. In machine learning, this generally delivers better performance, compensating for a potential lack in interpretability. With planning and enough confidence in the performance of learning-based methods from digital pathology and artificial intelligence, there is great potential to augment the diagnostic quality and correlation with clinical endpoints. This may improve the donor pool and vastly reduce diagnostic and prognostic errors that are known but currently are unavoidable in transplant donor pathology.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".