Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40256322›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in artificial intelligence2025

Mortality prediction of heart transplantation using machine learning models: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Ida Mohammadi, Setayesh Farahani, Asal Karimi, Saina Jahanian, Shahryar Rajai Firouzabadi, Mohammadreza Alinejadfard, Alireza Fatemi, Bardia Hajikarimloo, Mohammadhosein Akhlaghpasand

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in artificial intelligence, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. 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.

Ida Mohammadi *Student Research Committee, School of Medicine, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Setayesh Farahani *Cardiovascular Surgery Research and Development Committee, Iran University of Medical Sciences (IUMS), Tehran, Iran.
Asal KarimiCardiovascular Surgery Research and Development Committee, Iran University of Medical Sciences (IUMS), Tehran, Iran.
Saina JahanianCardiovascular Surgery Research and Development Committee, Iran University of Medical Sciences (IUMS), Tehran, Iran.
Shahryar Rajai FirouzabadiStudent Research Committee, School of Medicine, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Mohammadreza AlinejadfardStudent Research Committee, School of Medicine, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Alireza FatemiCardiovascular Surgery Research and Development Committee, Iran University of Medical Sciences (IUMS), Tehran, Iran.
Bardia HajikarimlooCardiovascular Surgery Research and Development Committee, Iran University of Medical Sciences (IUMS), Tehran, Iran.
Mohammadhosein AkhlaghpasandCardiovascular Surgery Research and Development Committee, Iran University of Medical Sciences (IUMS), Tehran, Iran.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Machine learning (ML) models have been increasingly applied to predict post-heart transplantation (HT) mortality, aiming to improve decision-making and optimize outcomes. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluates the performance of ML algorithms in predicting mortality and explores factors contributing to model accuracy. Method: A systematic search of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Embase identified relevant studies, with 17 studies included in the review and 12 in the meta-analysis. The algorithms assessed included random forests, CatBoost, neural networks, and others. Model performance was evaluated using pooled area under the curve (AUC) values, with subgroup analyses for algorithm type, validation methods, and prediction timeframes. The risk of bias was assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool. Results: The pooled AUC of all ML algorithms was 0.65 (95% CI: 0.64, 0.67), with no significant difference between machine learning and deep learning models ( Conclusion: ML models demonstrate moderate accuracy in predicting post-HT mortality, with CatBoost achieving the best performance. While ML shows potential for improving predictive precision, significant heterogeneity and biases highlight the need for standardized methods and further external validations to enhance clinical applicability. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42024509630, CRD42024509630.

Indexed as

artificial intelligenceheart failureheart transplantmachine learningmortality

Identifiers

PMID40256322
PMCPMC12006172

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.