MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4404556705 · doi:10.1101/2024.11.19.24316852

DynaMELD: A Dynamic Model of End-Stage Liver Disease for Equitable Prioritization

2024· preprint· en· W4404556705 on OpenAlexaff
Michael Cooper, Xiang Gao, Xun Zhao, Dariia Khoroshchuk, Amirhossein Azhie, Maryam Naghibzadeh, Sandra Holdsworth, Jed Adam Gross, Michael Brudno, Jordan J. Feld, Elmar Jaeckel, Gideon M. Hirschfield, Rahul G. Krishnan, Mamatha Bhat

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2024
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLiver Disease Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsTranslational Research in OncologyKingston Health Sciences CentreCanadian Transplant AssociationUniversity of ManitobaVector InstituteToronto Liver CentreUniversity of WaterlooUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of TorontoDonner Canadian FoundationMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConcordanceMedicinePrioritizationPrimary sclerosing cholangitisLiver transplantationLiver diseaseModel for End-Stage Liver DiseaseInternal medicineCohortUnited Network for Organ SharingDiseaseTransplantation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Liver transplantation (LT) is a life-saving intervention for patients with end-stage liver disease (ESLD). However, 12–20% of patients listed for LT will die on the waitlist. Modern risk scores used for transplant prioritization cannot encompass the full statistical heterogeneity of patients awaiting LT, disadvantaging women and patients with cholestatic liver disease. Our study objective was to implement more equitable LT prioritization via a more expressive class of statistical models to individualize risk prediction. To do so, we created DynaMELD, a deep machine learning-based model of waitlist prioritization. DynaMELD leverages a neural network to model complex interactions between covariates, and leverages the rate-of-change (velocity) of time-varying laboratory biomarkers to predict a more personalized risk of mortality or dropout. Our study cohort comprised 53,046 patients with ESLD listed for LT from 2016– 2023 from the U.S. Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients. Using 90-day concordance to measure risk discrimination, DynaMELD achieves 90-day concordance 0.5% higher than MELD 3.0 ( p < 0.001). Using pooled group concordance (PGCI) as a measure of fairness, DynaMELD achieves a PGCI 1.2% higher for female patients ( p < 0.001), 8.3% higher for patients with primary biliary cholangitis ( p < 0.001), 7.2% higher for patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis ( p < 0.001), and 1.5% higher for patients with acute-on-chronic liver failure Grade 1 ( p < 0.001) compared to MELD 3.0. DynaMELD reclassifies members of these sub-groups into higher risk tiers, suggesting it would improve their access to organ offers. Introspecting upon DynaMELD using the method of SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) values provides an individualized degree of model interpretability. Overall, DynaMELD may provide more accurate, individualized predictions of waitlist mortality or dropout to reduce inequities and fairly prioritize patients for liver transplant.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.049

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.281 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxiv→Same topicLiver Disease Diagnosis and Treatment→French-language works237,207→