Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39994720›Full record

SynthesisBMC medical informatics and decision making2025

Transforming liver transplant allocation with artificial intelligence and machine learning: a systematic review.

Lisiane Pruinelli, Kiruthika Balakrishnan, Sisi Ma, Zhigang Li, Anji Wall, Jennifer C Lai, Jesse D Schold, Timothy Pruett, Gyorgy Simon

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Beyond generic principles: a framework for the ethical analysis of artificial intelligence in organ transplantation.Transplant international : official journal of the European Society for Organ Transplantation · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
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

9 authors.

Lisiane PruinelliDepartment of Family, Community and Health Systems Science, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, US. lisianepruinelli@ufl.edu.
Kiruthika BalakrishnanDepartment of Family, Community and Health Systems Science, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, US.
Sisi MaInstitute for Health Informatics, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
Zhigang LiDepartment of Biostatistics, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA.
Anji WallBaylor University Medical Center in Dallas, Dallas, Texas, USA.
Jennifer C LaiDepartment of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, California, USA.
Jesse D ScholdDepartments of Surgery and Epidemiology, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, Colorado, USA.
Timothy PruettDepartment of Surgery, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, US.
Gyorgy SimonInstitute for Health Informatics, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA.

Funding

VARC CoreP30AG044281 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI Louise C. Walter · 2013 to 2026
$19.9M
NIA NIH HHS P30 AG044281
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe principles of urgency, utility, and benefit are fundamental concepts guiding the ethical and practical decision-making process for organ allocation; however, LT allocation still follows an urgency model.

aimTo identify and analyze data elements used in Machine Learning (ML) and Artificial Intelligence (AI) methods, data sources, and their focus on urgency, utility, or benefit in LT.

methodsA comprehensive search across Ovid Medline and Scopus was conducted for studies published from 2002 to June 2023. Inclusion criteria targeted quantitative studies using ML/AI for candidates, donors, or recipients. Two reviewers assessed eligibility and extracted data, following PRISMA guidelines.

resultsA total of 20 papers were included, synthesizing results into five major categories. Eight studies were led by a Spanish team, focusing on donor-recipient matching and proposing machine learning models to predict post- LT survival. Other international studies addressed organ supply-demand issues and developed predictive models to optimize LT outcomes. The studies highlight the potential of ML/AI to enhance LT allocation and outcomes. Despite advancements, limitations included the lack of robust transplant-related benefit models and improvements in urgency models compared to MELD. DISCUSSION: This review highlighted the potential of AI and ML to enhance liver transplant allocation and outcomes. Significant advancements were noted, but limitations such as the need for better urgency models and the absence of a transplant-related benefit model remain. Most studies emphasized utility, focusing on survival outcomes. Future research should address the interpretability and generalizability of these models to improve organ allocation and post-LT survival predictions.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceLiver TransplantationMachine LearningTissue and Organ ProcurementHumansArtificial intelligenceLiver transplantationMachine learningOrgan allocationTransplant-related benefit

Identifiers

PMID39994720
PMCPMC11852809

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.