ArticleBMC gastroenterology2025
Mortality risk prediction in liver transplant candidates: a prognostic model using key clinical variables.
Article in BMC gastroenterology, 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.
- Cap-assisted endoscopic sclerotherapy for bleeding-predominant grade III hemorrhoids: efficacy and risk factor analysis focusing on two dimensions of bleeding score.Techniques in coloproctology · 2026Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAccurate mortality prediction is vital for liver transplant allocation, but models like MELD-Na and Child-Pugh may overlook important individual risk factors. This study aimed to develop and validate a prognostic model using key clinical variables and both statistical and machine learning methods. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis retrospective study of 193 liver transplant candidates at Taleghani Hospital analyzed clinical data to identify predictors of waiting list mortality. Key variables were selected based on univariate logistic regression performance and clinical relevance, avoiding overlap with composite scores. These predictors were then modeled using logistic regression and imbalance-handled machine learning approaches, and a nomogram was constructed for individualized risk estimation.
resultsAmong the 193 patients included in the study, 9 individuals (4.7%) died while on the liver transplant waiting list. In the multivariate logistic regression analysis, both the MELD-Na score (odds ratio [OR] = 1.25, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.06-1.47) and hepatic encephalopathy (OR = 36.94, 95% CI: 5.07-269.28) remained statistically significant. MELD-Na (AUC: 0.86), albumin (AUC: 0.77), and hepatic encephalopathy (AUC: 0.62) were retained as the key non-overlapping predictors of mortality. Among the imbalance-handled models, support vector machine (AUC: 0.85; PPV: 0.41) and naïve Bayes (AUC: 0.88; PPV: 0.38) demonstrated the highest overall performance. Additionally, a clinically interpretable nomogram constructed from the key predictors showed promising performance.
conclusionThis study developed internally validated prognostic models and a clinically interpretable nomogram to predict mortality among liver transplant candidates. The findings support individualized risk assessment and represent an important first step toward integrating machine learning into transplant decision-making. However, external and multicenter validation is required before clinical implementation.
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.