SynthesisCanadian liver journal2026
Investigating the role of artificial intelligence in predicting risk factors after liver transplantation: A systematic review.
Synthesis in Canadian liver journal, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Liver transplantation (LT) is the treatment of choice for patients with end-stage liver disease, yet its success is often compromised by serious complications such as acute kidney injury (AKI), graft failure, recurrence of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), and infections. Recent advances in AI-especially machine learning (ML) and deep learning (DL)-offer promising tools for predicting these outcomes and supporting early clinical interventions. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the performance and limitations of AI-based models in predicting key post-LT complications. Methods: PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar were comprehensively searched from January 2000 to December 2025. Studies applying AI algorithms to predict post-LT outcomes in humans were included. Non-English-language articles, non-original studies, and articles without predictive modelling were excluded. Two reviewers independently screened and extracted data, including study design, AI type, input data, validation method, and performance metrics. Due to high heterogeneity, no meta-analysis was performed. Results: Of 6,744 articles identified, 14 met the inclusion criteria. ML models (eg, random forest, XGBoost, support vector machines, and neural networks) were used in most studies; DL architectures (eg, CNNs, DeepSurv, and CapsNets) were used in a few, and reported AUROC ranges were 0.61-0.96. Only four studies used external validation. Commonly predicted outcomes included AKI, HCC recurrence, sepsis, graft-versus-host disease, and malignancy. Conclusions: AI algorithms show strong potential for predicting post-LT complications, particularly when ensemble or imaging-based DL models are used. However, limited validation and interpretability remain challenges. Future research should focus on multicentre validation, transparent reporting, and clinical integration.
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.