ReviewFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2026
Artificial intelligence optimizes immune rejection prediction and management in heart transplantation: a structured narrative review.
Review in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Heart transplantation remains the definitive therapy for end-stage heart failure, yet long-term outcomes are limited by three core clinical bottlenecks in immune rejection management: imprecise preoperative donor-recipient matching, overreliance on invasive endomyocardial biopsy (EMB) for postoperative rejection surveillance, and high inter-observer variability in manual pathological diagnosis of rejection. Artificial intelligence (AI) has emerged as a promising tool to address these gaps, but the methodological quality and clinical translation readiness of supporting evidence have not been comprehensively synthesized. Methods: This structured narrative review synthesized original research published between October 1, 2020, and October 1, 2025, identified via a targeted PubMed search and manual reference screening. Two independent reviewers performed study selection and data extraction, with discrepancies resolved by consensus. Common methodological limitations across included studies were synthesized qualitatively. Results: A total of 42 studies were included in the final qualitative synthesis. Preoperatively, 3D-Convolutional Neural Networks (3D-CNNs) enabled automated, accurate total cardiac volume (TCV) measurement for anatomical matching, while machine learning models identified non-linear synergistic risk factors for postoperative adverse events, outperforming traditional regression models. Postoperatively, AI models integrating non-invasive biomarkers (gene expression profiles, extracellular vesicles, donor-derived cell-free DNA) showed high diagnostic accuracy for rejection, with one single-center retrospective study estimating a 56.8% reduction in unnecessary EMB procedures (prospective clinical validation is still required). For pathological diagnosis, AI models improved the sensitivity of high-grade acute cellular rejection (ACR) detection from 39.5% to 74.4% compared with manual assessment, generative adversarial networks (GANs) addressed rare rejection sample scarcity with a rejection region detection AUROC of 98.84%, and explainable AI tools aligned model decisions with pathologists' judgment. The overall methodological quality of included studies was suboptimal, with most studies limited by single-center retrospective design, small sample size, and lack of independent external validation. Conclusions: AI has demonstrated promising potential to optimize donor-recipient matching, enable non-invasive rejection surveillance, and standardize pathological diagnosis in heart transplantation. However, most current evidence comes from exploratory, single-center retrospective studies with important methodological limitations that restrict their immediate clinical translation. Future research should prioritize prospective, multi-center clinical validation, standardized biomarker and model reporting, and federated learning data ecosystems to translate AI innovations into routine clinical practice.
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.