ArticleClinical transplantation2023
The utility of machine learning for predicting donor discard in abdominal transplantation.
Article in Clinical transplantation, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- The utility of machine learning for predicting donor non-use in lung transplantation.JHLT open · 2026Article
- Machine Learning-Assisted FTIR Spectroscopy Analysis of Kidney Preservation Fluids for Delayed Graft Function Risk Stratification.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Acceptance of deceased donor livers in the United Kingdom - development of a liver "donor utilisation index".Transplant international : official journal of the European Society for Organ Transplantation · 2026Article
- Prediction of Bandgap in Lithium-Ion Battery Materials Based on Explainable Boosting Machine Learning Techniques.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIncreasing access and better allocation of organs in the field of transplantation is a critical problem in clinical care. Limitations exist in accurately predicting allograft discard. Potential exists for machine learning to provide a balanced assessment of the potential for an organ to be used in a transplantation procedure.
methodsWe accessed and utilized all available deceased donor United Network for Organ Sharing data from 1987 to 2020. With these data, we evaluated the performance of multiple machine learning methods for predicting organ use. The machine learning methods trialed included XGBoost, random forest, Naïve Bayes (NB), logistic regression, and fully connected feedforward neural network classifier methods. The top two methods, XGBoost and random forest, were fully developed using 10-fold cross-validation and Bayesian optimization of hyperparameters.
resultsThe top performing model at predicting liver organ use was an XGBoost model which achieved an AUC-ROC of .925, an AUC-PR of .868, and an F1 statistic of .756. The top performing model for predicting kidney organ use classification was an XGBoost model which achieved an AUC-ROC of .952, and AUC-PR of .883, and an F1 statistic of .786.
conclusionsThe XGBoost method demonstrated a significant improvement in predicting donor allograft discard for both kidney and livers in solid organ transplantation procedures. Machine learning methods are well suited to be incorporated into the clinical workflow; they can provide robust quantitative predictions and meaningful data insights for clinician consideration and transplantation decision-making.
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.