Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35700006›Full record

ArticleJMIR medical informatics2022

Machine Learning Support for Decision-Making in Kidney Transplantation: Step-by-step Development of a Technological Solution.

François-Xavier Paquette, Amir Ghassemi, Olga Bukhtiyarova, Moustapha Cisse, Natanael Gagnon, Alexia Della Vecchia, Hobivola A Rabearivelo, Youssef Loudiyi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR medical informatics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Artificial Intelligence Advances in Transplant Pathology.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

François-Xavier PaquetteBI Expertise, Quebec, QC, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0132-6830
Amir GhassemiBI Expertise, Quebec, QC, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4671-3554
Olga BukhtiyarovaBI Expertise, Quebec, QC, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7568-7810
Moustapha CisseBI Expertise, Quebec, QC, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2400-2492
Natanael GagnonBI Expertise, Quebec, QC, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5553-2176
Alexia Della VecchiaBI Expertise, Quebec, QC, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0573-3257
Hobivola A RabeariveloBI Expertise, Quebec, QC, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1615-320X
Youssef LoudiyiBI Expertise, Quebec, QC, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5392-8211

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundKidney transplantation is the preferred treatment option for patients with end-stage renal disease. To maximize patient and graft survival, the allocation of donor organs to potential recipients requires careful consideration.

objectiveThis study aimed to develop an innovative technological solution to enable better prediction of kidney transplant survival for each potential donor-recipient pair.

methodsWe used deidentified data on past organ donors, recipients, and transplant outcomes in the United States from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients. To predict transplant outcomes for potential donor-recipient pairs, we used several survival analysis models, including regression analysis (Cox proportional hazards), random survival forests, and several artificial neural networks (DeepSurv, DeepHit, and recurrent neural network [RNN]). We evaluated the performance of each model in terms of its ability to predict the probability of graft survival after kidney transplantation from deceased donors. Three metrics were used: the C-index, integrated Brier score, and integrated calibration index, along with calibration plots.

resultsOn the basis of the C-index metrics, the neural network-based models (DeepSurv, DeepHit, and RNN) had better discriminative ability than the Cox model and random survival forest model (0.650, 0.661, and 0.659 vs 0.646 and 0.644, respectively). The proposed RNN model offered a compromise between the good discriminative ability and calibration and was implemented in a technological solution of technology readiness level 4.

conclusionsOur technological solution based on the RNN model can effectively predict kidney transplant survival and provide support for medical professionals and candidate recipients in determining the most optimal donor-recipient pair.

Indexed as

artificial intelligencekidney transplantationmachine learningmedical decision support

Identifiers

PMID35700006
PMCPMC9240927

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.