SynthesisBMC medical informatics and decision making2025
Transforming liver transplant allocation with artificial intelligence and machine learning: a systematic review.
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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- AI-based organ weight estimation from postmortem computed tomography.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Early Implications for Solid Organ Transplantation With the Use of Artificial Intelligence From a Bibliometric Perspective.Mayo Clinic proceedings. Digital health · 2026Review
- Artificial Intelligence in Post-Liver Transplantation: A Scoping Review of Comparative Model Performance.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- 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 · 2026Article
- Pediatric-adult split liver transplantation: an ethical imperative and systems-based roadmap for global expansion.Frontiers in transplantation · 2025Article
- Bioethical challenges in the integration of artificial intelligence in transplant surgery 4.0: A scoping review.Digital healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
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
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.