ArticleBMJ health & care informatics2025
Prediction of biological evolution following blood product transfusion during liver transplantation: the contribution of machine learning to decision-making.
Article in BMJ health & care informatics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- AI-Driven Innovations in Transfusion Medicine: A Narrative Synthesis of Current Reviews.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesLiver transplantation is a complex procedure frequently requiring transfusion of blood products to manage coagulopathy and haemorrhage. This study aimed to develop machine learning models to predict the biological effects of blood product transfusions, assisting clinicians in selecting optimal therapeutic combinations.
methodsUsing data from two cohorts over 20 years from two academic hospitals, 10 supervised machine learning models were trained and validated on four biomarkers: fibrinogen, haemoglobin, prothrombin time and activated partial thromboplastin time ratio. Models were evaluated using R², root mean squared error and SD metrics, with external validation performed on the second cohort.
resultsThe results indicated that while certain models, such as the stack model for late fibrinogen (R²=0.63) or the extra trees model for late prothrombin time (R²=0.66), demonstrated promising predictive capacity, the overall external validation performance was suboptimal. Despite the use of a large healthcare database, a rigorous statistical methodology and an academic machine learning methodology, most models showed limited generalisability (R² < 0.5). DISCUSSION: Key limitations included the small dataset size relative to machine learning requirements, lack of advanced haemostatic parameters (eg, ROtational ThromboElastoMetry (ROTEM) or Thromboelastography (TEG)) and the variability introduced by evolving surgical practices over the 20-year study period. Despite these limitations, this study provides a reproducible framework for evaluating transfusion efficacy, supported by openly shared Python code and the application of Taylor diagrams for model evaluation.
conclusionWhile our models are unsuitable for routine clinical use, they highlight the potential of machine learning in transfusion medicine. Future work should focus on integrating larger datasets, advanced biomarkers and real-time data.
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.