Literature DB >> 24905493

Use of artificial intelligence as an innovative donor-recipient matching model for liver transplantation: results from a multicenter Spanish study.

Javier Briceño1, Manuel Cruz-Ramírez2, Martín Prieto3, Miguel Navasa4, Jorge Ortiz de Urbina5, Rafael Orti6, Miguel-Ángel Gómez-Bravo7, Alejandra Otero8, Evaristo Varo9, Santiago Tomé9, Gerardo Clemente10, Rafael Bañares10, Rafael Bárcena11, Valentín Cuervas-Mons12, Guillermo Solórzano13, Carmen Vinaixa3, Angel Rubín3, Jordi Colmenero4, Andrés Valdivieso5, Rubén Ciria6, César Hervás-Martínez2, Manuel de la Mata6.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND & AIMS: There is an increasing discrepancy between the number of potential liver graft recipients and the number of organs available. Organ allocation should follow the concept of benefit of survival, avoiding human-innate subjectivity. The aim of this study is to use artificial-neural-networks (ANNs) for donor-recipient (D-R) matching in liver transplantation (LT) and to compare its accuracy with validated scores (MELD, D-MELD, DRI, P-SOFT, SOFT, and BAR) of graft survival.
METHODS: 64 donor and recipient variables from a set of 1003 LTs from a multicenter study including 11 Spanish centres were included. For each D-R pair, common statistics (simple and multiple regression models) and ANN formulae for two non-complementary probability-models of 3-month graft-survival and -loss were calculated: a positive-survival (NN-CCR) and a negative-loss (NN-MS) model. The NN models were obtained by using the Neural Net Evolutionary Programming (NNEP) algorithm. Additionally, receiver-operating-curves (ROC) were performed to validate ANNs against other scores.
RESULTS: Optimal results for NN-CCR and NN-MS models were obtained, with the best performance in predicting the probability of graft-survival (90.79%) and -loss (71.42%) for each D-R pair, significantly improving results from multiple regressions. ROC curves for 3-months graft-survival and -loss predictions were significantly more accurate for ANN than for other scores in both NN-CCR (AUROC-ANN=0.80 vs. -MELD=0.50; -D-MELD=0.54; -P-SOFT=0.54; -SOFT=0.55; -BAR=0.67 and -DRI=0.42) and NN-MS (AUROC-ANN=0.82 vs. -MELD=0.41; -D-MELD=0.47; -P-SOFT=0.43; -SOFT=0.57, -BAR=0.61 and -DRI=0.48).
CONCLUSIONS: ANNs may be considered a powerful decision-making technology for this dataset, optimizing the principles of justice, efficiency and equity. This may be a useful tool for predicting the 3-month outcome and a potential research area for future D-R matching models.
Copyright © 2014 European Association for the Study of the Liver. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Allocation; Artificial intelligence; Optimization; Prediction; Survival

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24905493     DOI: 10.1016/j.jhep.2014.05.039

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Hepatol        ISSN: 0168-8278            Impact factor:   25.083


  16 in total

Review 1.  Strategies to improve outcome of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma receiving a liver transplantation.

Authors:  Marta Guerrero-Misas; Manuel Rodríguez-Perálvarez; Manuel De la Mata
Journal:  World J Hepatol       Date:  2015-04-08

Review 2.  The digital transformation of hepatology: The patient is logged in.

Authors:  Tiffany Wu; Douglas A Simonetto; John D Halamka; Vijay H Shah
Journal:  Hepatology       Date:  2022-01-31       Impact factor: 17.298

3.  Machine-Learning Algorithms Predict Graft Failure After Liver Transplantation.

Authors:  Lawrence Lau; Yamuna Kankanige; Benjamin Rubinstein; Robert Jones; Christopher Christophi; Vijayaragavan Muralidharan; James Bailey
Journal:  Transplantation       Date:  2017-04       Impact factor: 4.939

Review 4.  A Comprehensive Review of Outcome Predictors in Low MELD Patients.

Authors:  Nikhilesh R Mazumder; Kofi Atiemo; Matthew Kappus; Giuseppe Cullaro; Matthew E Harinstein; Daniela Ladner; Elizabeth Verna; Jennifer Lai; Josh Levitsky
Journal:  Transplantation       Date:  2020-02       Impact factor: 5.385

5.  Developing a donation after cardiac death risk index for adult and pediatric liver transplantation.

Authors:  Shirin Elizabeth Khorsandi; Emmanouil Giorgakis; Hector Vilca-Melendez; John O'Grady; Michael Heneghan; Varuna Aluvihare; Abid Suddle; Kosh Agarwal; Krishna Menon; Andreas Prachalias; Parthi Srinivasan; Mohamed Rela; Wayel Jassem; Nigel Heaton
Journal:  World J Transplant       Date:  2017-06-24

6.  Identification and Validation of the Predictive Capacity of Risk Factors and Models in Liver Transplantation Over Time.

Authors:  Joris J Blok; Hein Putter; Herold J Metselaar; Robert J Porte; Federica Gonella; Jeroen de Jonge; Aad P van den Berg; Josephine van der Zande; Jacob D de Boer; Bart van Hoek; Andries E Braat
Journal:  Transplant Direct       Date:  2018-08-21

7.  Predictive Capacity of Risk Models in Liver Transplantation.

Authors:  Jacob D de Boer; Hein Putter; Joris J Blok; Ian P J Alwayn; Bart van Hoek; Andries E Braat
Journal:  Transplant Direct       Date:  2019-05-22

Review 8.  Artificial Intelligence in hepatology, liver surgery and transplantation: Emerging applications and frontiers of research.

Authors:  Fadl H Veerankutty; Govind Jayan; Manish Kumar Yadav; Krishnan Sarojam Manoj; Abhishek Yadav; Sindhu Radha Sadasivan Nair; T U Shabeerali; Varghese Yeldho; Madhu Sasidharan; Shiraz Ahmad Rather
Journal:  World J Hepatol       Date:  2021-12-27

9.  Identification and weighting of kidney allocation criteria: a novel multi-expert fuzzy method.

Authors:  Nasrin Taherkhani; Mohammad Mehdi Sepehri; Shadi Shafaghi; Toktam Khatibi
Journal:  BMC Med Inform Decis Mak       Date:  2019-09-06       Impact factor: 2.796

10.  Survival prediction models since liver transplantation - comparisons between Cox models and machine learning techniques.

Authors:  Georgios Kantidakis; Hein Putter; Carlo Lancia; Jacob de Boer; Andries E Braat; Marta Fiocco
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2020-11-16       Impact factor: 4.615

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.