Using Artificial Intelligence for Predicting Survival of Individual Grafts in Liver Transplantation: A Systematic Review

Organization: American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases
Journey Stage: (K) Early Survival After Transplant
Organization Type: Society or Professional Organization
Use Case(s): Allocation, Donor Prediction, Patient Experience
Country: UK

Pulled from PubMed

Laura R Wingfield 1, Carlo Ceresa 1, Simon Thorogood 2, Jacques Fleuriot 2, Simon Knight 1

The demand for liver transplantation far outstrips the supply of deceased donor organs, and so, listing and allocation decisions aim to maximize utility. Most existing methods for predicting transplant outcomes use basic methods, such as regression modeling, but newer artificial intelligence (AI) techniques have the potential to improve predictive accuracy. The aim was to perform a systematic review of studies predicting graft outcomes following deceased donor liver transplantation using AI techniques and to compare these findings to linear regression and standard predictive modeling: donor risk index (DRI), Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD), and Survival Outcome Following Liver Transplantation (SOFT). After reviewing available article databases, a total of 52 articles were reviewed for inclusion. Of these articles, 9 met the inclusion criteria, which reported outcomes from 18,771 liver transplants. Artificial neural networks (ANNs) were the most commonly used methodology, being reported in 7 studies. Only 2 studies directly compared machine learning (ML) techniques to liver scoring modalities (i.e., DRI, SOFT, and balance of risk [BAR]). Both studies showed better prediction of individual organ survival with the optimal ANN model, reporting an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) 0.82 compared with BAR (0.62) and SOFT (0.57), and the other ANN model gave an AUC ROC of 0.84 compared with a DRI (0.68) and SOFT (0.64). AI techniques can provide high accuracy in predicting graft survival based on donors and recipient variables. When compared with the standard techniques, AI methods are dynamic and are able to be trained and validated within every population. However, the high accuracy of AI may come at a cost of losing explainability (to patients and clinicians) on how the technology works.

Key Contact:

Laura R
Wingfield
Academic Clinical Fellow and surgeon in the Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences at the John Radcliffe Hospital, University of Oxford

The Alliance is committed to fostering collaboration and knowledge-sharing across the donation and transplantation community. Research and materials shared on this page are contributed by individual authors and organizations. While we aim to provide a valuable forum for exchange, submissions are not formally reviewed or endorsed by The Alliance. The perspectives expressed belong solely to the authors, and users are encouraged to review content thoughtfully and in the context of their own professional judgment.