INTRODUCTION: The prediction of post transplantation outcomes is clinically important and involves several problems. The current prediction models based on standard statistics are very complex, difficult to validate and do not provide accurate prediction. Machine learning, a statistical technique that allows the computer to make future predictions using previous experiences, is beginning to be used in order to solve these issues. In the field of kidney transplantation, computational forecasting use has been reported in prediction of chronic allograft rejection, delayed graft function, and graft survival. This paper describes machine learning principles and steps to make a prediction and performs a brief analysis of the most recent applications of its application in literature. DISCUSSION: There is compelling evidence that machine learning approaches based on donor and recipient data are better in providing improved prognosis of graft outcomes than traditional analysis. The immediate expectations that emerge from this new prediction modelling technique are that it will generate better clinical decisions based on dynamic and local practice data and optimize organ allocation as well as post transplantation care management. Despite the promising results, there is no substantial number of studies yet to determine feasibility of its application in a clinical setting. CONCLUSION: The way we deal with storage data in electronic health records will radically change in the coming years and machine learning will be part of clinical daily routine, whether to predict clinical outcomes or suggest diagnosis based on institutional experience.
INTRODUCTION: The prediction of post transplantation outcomes is clinically important and involves several problems. The current prediction models based on standard statistics are very complex, difficult to validate and do not provide accurate prediction. Machine learning, a statistical technique that allows the computer to make future predictions using previous experiences, is beginning to be used in order to solve these issues. In the field of kidney transplantation, computational forecasting use has been reported in prediction of chronic allograft rejection, delayed graft function, and graft survival. This paper describes machine learning principles and steps to make a prediction and performs a brief analysis of the most recent applications of its application in literature. DISCUSSION: There is compelling evidence that machine learning approaches based on donor and recipient data are better in providing improved prognosis of graft outcomes than traditional analysis. The immediate expectations that emerge from this new prediction modelling technique are that it will generate better clinical decisions based on dynamic and local practice data and optimize organ allocation as well as post transplantation care management. Despite the promising results, there is no substantial number of studies yet to determine feasibility of its application in a clinical setting. CONCLUSION: The way we deal with storage data in electronic health records will radically change in the coming years and machine learning will be part of clinical daily routine, whether to predict clinical outcomes or suggest diagnosis based on institutional experience.
Authors: Sergey Krikov; Altaf Khan; Bradley C Baird; Lev L Barenbaum; Alexander Leviatov; James K Koford; Alexander S Goldfarb-Rumyantzev Journal: ASAIO J Date: 2007 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 2.872
Authors: David J Taber; Arun P Palanisamy; Titte R Srinivas; Mulugeta Gebregziabher; John Odeghe; Kenneth D Chavin; Leonard E Egede; Prabhakar K Baliga Journal: Transplantation Date: 2015-02 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: T R Srinivas; D J Taber; Z Su; J Zhang; G Mour; D Northrup; A Tripathi; J E Marsden; W P Moran; P D Mauldin Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2017-01-04 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: Alexander S Goldfarb-Rumyantzev; John D Scandling; Lisa Pappas; Randall J Smout; Susan Horn Journal: Clin Transplant Date: 2003-12 Impact factor: 2.863
Authors: Azra Bihorac; Tezcan Ozrazgat-Baslanti; Ashkan Ebadi; Amir Motaei; Mohcine Madkour; Panagote M Pardalos; Gloria Lipori; William R Hogan; Philip A Efron; Frederick Moore; Lyle L Moldawer; Daisy Zhe Wang; Charles E Hobson; Parisa Rashidi; Xiaolin Li; Petar Momcilovic Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2019-04 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Kyung Don Yoo; Junhyug Noh; Hajeong Lee; Dong Ki Kim; Chun Soo Lim; Young Hoon Kim; Jung Pyo Lee; Gunhee Kim; Yon Su Kim Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2017-08-21 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Silvana Daher Costa; Luis Gustavo Modelli de Andrade; Francisco Victor Carvalho Barroso; Cláudia Maria Costa de Oliveira; Elizabeth De Francesco Daher; Paula Frassinetti Castelo Branco Camurça Fernandes; Ronaldo de Matos Esmeraldo; Tainá Veras de Sandes-Freitas Journal: PLoS One Date: 2020-02-06 Impact factor: 3.240