ArticlePediatric transplantation2022
External validation and comparison of risk score models in pediatric heart transplants.
Article in Pediatric transplantation, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Prognostic integration of tumor microenvironment and parthanatos-related genes in gastric cancer: a machine learning-driven risk model and immune landscape profiling.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Article
- Survival machine learning methods for mortality prediction after heart transplantation in the contemporary era.PloS one · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPediatric heart transplant (PHT) patients have the highest waitlist mortality of solid organ transplants, yet more than 40% of viable hearts are unutilized. A tool for risk prediction could impact these outcomes. This study aimed to compare and validate the PHT risk score models (RSMs) in the literature.
methodsThe literature was reviewed to identify RSMs published. The United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) registry was used to validate the published models identified in a pediatric cohort (<18 years) transplanted between 2017 and 2019 and compared against the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR) 2021 model. Primary outcome was post-transplant 1-year mortality. Odds ratios were obtained to evaluate the association between risk score groups and 1-year mortality. Area under the curve (AUC) was used to compare the RSM scores on their goodness-of-fit, using Delong's test.
resultsSix recipient and one donor RSMs published between 2008 and 2021 were included in the analysis. The validation cohort included 1,003 PHT. Low-risk groups had a significantly better survival than high-risk groups as predicted by Choudhry (OR = 4.59, 95% CI [2.36-8.93]) and Fraser III (3.17 [1.43-7.05]) models. Choudhry's and SRTR models achieved the best overall performance (AUC = 0.69 and 0.68, respectively). When adjusted for CHD and ventricular assist device support, all models reported better predictability [AUC > 0.6]. Choudhry (AUC = 0.69) and SRTR (AUC = 0.71) remained the best predicting RSMs even after adjustment.
conclusionAlthough the RSMs by SRTR and Choudhry provided the best prediction for 1-year mortality, none demonstrated a strong (AUC ≥ 0.8) concordance statistic. All published studies lacked advanced analytical approaches and were derived from an inherently limited dataset.
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.