ReviewEClinicalMedicine2026
Artificial intelligence and machine learning in heart and lung transplantation.
Review in EClinicalMedicine, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) are increasingly applied across the heart and lung transplant continuum, from donor organ evaluation and waitlist prioritisation through peri-operative decision support to post-transplant rejection surveillance and personalised immunosuppression. Deep learning for endomyocardial biopsy interpretation has achieved an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.962, with performance comparable to expert pathologists, while ML-augmented ex-vivo lung perfusion platforms have demonstrated the potential to expand organ utilisation in real-world implementation studies. Noninvasive donor-derived cell-free DNA assays and electrocardiogram-based deep learning models are beginning to reduce dependence on invasive surveillance biopsies. Across published studies, models predicting 1-year post-transplant mortality have shown only moderate discrimination. Most published models remain retrospectively validated on single-centre datasets with limited external validation, inconsistent calibration reporting, and unresolved concerns about algorithmic bias and global health equity. This scoping review synthesises current evidence, critically appraises model performance, and identifies the regulatory, ethical, and methodological steps required for responsible clinical integration. Future research should prioritise prospective, multicentre external validation, transparent calibration reporting, and formal evaluation of clinical utility before these tools are adopted in routine transplant care.
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.