A machine-learning approach to human ex vivo lung perfusion predicts transplantation outcomes and promotes organ utilization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ex vivo lung perfusion (EVLP) is a data-intensive platform used for the assessment of isolated lungs outside the body for transplantation; however, the integration of artificial intelligence to rapidly interpret the large constellation of clinical data generated during ex vivo assessment remains an unmet need. We developed a machine-learning model, termed InsighTx, to predict post-transplant outcomes using n = 725 EVLP cases. InsighTx model AUROC (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve) was 79 ± 3%, 75 ± 4%, and 85 ± 3% in training and independent test datasets, respectively. Excellent performance was observed in predicting unsuitable lungs for transplantation (AUROC: 90 ± 4%) and transplants with good outcomes (AUROC: 80 ± 4%). In a retrospective and blinded implementation study by EVLP specialists at our institution, InsighTx increased the likelihood of transplanting suitable donor lungs [odds ratio=13; 95% CI:4-45] and decreased the likelihood of transplanting unsuitable donor lungs [odds ratio=0.4; 95%CI:0.16-0.98]. Herein, we provide strong rationale for the adoption of machine-learning algorithms to optimize EVLP assessments and show that InsighTx could potentially lead to a safe increase in transplantation rates.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".