ArticleBMC medical research methodology2020
Survival prediction models since liver transplantation - comparisons between Cox models and machine learning techniques.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
41 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Comparison of machine learning methods versus traditional Cox regression for survival prediction in cancer using real-world data: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis.BMC medical research methodology · 2025Pooled it
- Transforming liver transplant allocation with artificial intelligence and machine learning: a systematic review.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2025Pooled it
- Survival prediction landscape: an in-depth systematic literature review on activities, methods, tools, diseases, and databases.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2024Pooled it
- Leveraging machine learning to predict de novo skin malignancy following lung transplantation.Lung cancer management · 2026Article
- XGBoost Outperforms Traditional Transplant Regulatory Models Based on Regression.Annals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches · 2026Article
- Machine learning-guided personalized immunochemotherapy strategies in intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma.JHEP reports : innovation in hepatology · 2026Article
- Beyond classical models: LLM-driven survival analysis for breast cancer prognosis using European cancer registry data.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2026Article
- Machine learning-based risk stratification of early graft failure in simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplantation.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Post-Liver Transplantation: A Scoping Review of Comparative Model Performance.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Article
- Dynamic survival analysis via a landmarking-gradient boosting approach and its application to kidney transplant data.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2025Article
- Machine Learning-Based Selection of Resection vs Transplant and Survival in Hepatocellular Carcinoma.JAMA network open · 2025Article
- Sarcopenia and frailty: An in-depth analysis of the pathophysiology and effect on liver transplant candidates.World journal of hepatology · 2025Review
- AI-driven 3D bioprinting for regenerative medicine: From bench to bedside.Bioactive materials · 2025Review
- Article
- Developing clinical prognostic models to predict graft survival after renal transplantation: comparison of statistical and machine learning models.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2025Article
- Article
- Advancing risk stratification in kidney transplantation: integrating HLA-derived T-cell epitope and B-cell epitope matching algorithms for enhanced predictive accuracy of HLA compatibility.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Article
- Use of Predictive Models to Determine Transplant Eligibility.Current transplantation reports · 2024Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Liver Diseases: Recent Advances.Advances in therapy · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPredicting survival of recipients after liver transplantation is regarded as one of the most important challenges in contemporary medicine. Hence, improving on current prediction models is of great interest.Nowadays, there is a strong discussion in the medical field about machine learning (ML) and whether it has greater potential than traditional regression models when dealing with complex data. Criticism to ML is related to unsuitable performance measures and lack of interpretability which is important for clinicians.
methodsIn this paper, ML techniques such as random forests and neural networks are applied to large data of 62294 patients from the United States with 97 predictors selected on clinical/statistical grounds, over more than 600, to predict survival from transplantation. Of particular interest is also the identification of potential risk factors. A comparison is performed between 3 different Cox models (with all variables, backward selection and LASSO) and 3 machine learning techniques: a random survival forest and 2 partial logistic artificial neural networks (PLANNs). For PLANNs, novel extensions to their original specification are tested. Emphasis is given on the advantages and pitfalls of each method and on the interpretability of the ML techniques.
resultsWell-established predictive measures are employed from the survival field (C-index, Brier score and Integrated Brier Score) and the strongest prognostic factors are identified for each model. Clinical endpoint is overall graft-survival defined as the time between transplantation and the date of graft-failure or death. The random survival forest shows slightly better predictive performance than Cox models based on the C-index. Neural networks show better performance than both Cox models and random survival forest based on the Integrated Brier Score at 10 years.
conclusionIn this work, it is shown that machine learning techniques can be a useful tool for both prediction and interpretation in the survival context. From the ML techniques examined here, PLANN with 1 hidden layer predicts survival probabilities the most accurately, being as calibrated as the Cox model with all variables.
trial registrationRetrospective data were provided by the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients under Data Use Agreement number 9477 for analysis of risk factors after liver transplantation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.