CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 152Organ Transplantation Techniques and OutcomesOrgan Donation and TransplantationTransplantation: Methods and Outcomes

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 43 of the 43 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

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

Open access
Briceño, Javier, Cruz-Ramírez, Manuel, Prieto, Martín, Navasa, Miguel, Ortiz de Urbina, Jorge, Orti, Rafael, Gómez-Bravo, Miguel-Ángel, Otero, Alejandra, Varo, Evaristo, Tomé, Santiago, Clemente, Gerardo, Bañares, Rafael, Bárcena, Rafael, Cuervas-Mons, Valentín, Solórzano, Guillermo, Vinaixa, Carmen, Rubín, Ángel, Colmenero, Jordi, Valdivieso, Andrés, Ciria, Rubén, Hervás-Martínez, César, de la Mata, Manuel·2014·Journal of Hepatology
DOI 10.1016/j.jhep.2014.05.039
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

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.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jhep.2014.05.039

Cites

43 of 43 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 42 references

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Drake, 2001, Use of remote sensing and ANN in prediction of pets in Queensland, Remote Sensing Environ, 12, 32

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Briceño, J., Cruz-Ramírez, M., Prieto, M., Navasa, M., Ortiz de Urbina, J., Orti, R., Gómez-Bravo, M.-Á., Otero, A., Varo, E., Tomé, S., Clemente, G., Bañares, R., Bárcena, R., Cuervas-Mons, V., Solórzano, G., Vinaixa, C., Rubín, Á., Colmenero, J., Valdivieso, A., Ciria, R., Hervás-Martínez, C., & de la Mata, M.
Affiliations
  • Instituto Maimónides de Investigación Biomédica de Córdoba (ES)
  • University of Córdoba (ES)
  • Hospital Universitari i Politècnic La Fe (ES)
  • Hospital Clínic de Barcelona (ES)
  • Complejo Hospitalario Universitario de Santiago (ES)
  • Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañón (ES)
  • Hospital Universitario Ramón y Cajal (ES)
  • Government of Extremadura (ES)
  • Hospital de Cruces (ES)
Corresponding author
Briceño, Javier
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Hepatology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2014-11
Volume
61
Issue
5
Pages
1020-1028
ISSN
0168-8278 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.jhep.2014.05.039
OpenAlex
W2013028137
Cited by
152
References
42
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 6
FWCI
5.62
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Journal of Hepatology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • LA Referencia (Red Federada de Repositorios Institucionales de Publicaciones Científicas) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • RUNA. Repositorio Institucional del Sergas (Servicio Gallego de Salud (SERGAS)) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Organ Transplantation Techniques and Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Organ Donation and Transplantation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Transplantation: Methods and Outcomes
Keywords
liver transplantation, donor-recipient matching, artificial neural networks, organ allocation, graft survival prediction, graft loss, MELD score, DRI, organ shortage, decision support system
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Algorithms, Artificial Intelligence, Decision Making, Computer-Assisted, Female, Graft Survival, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Prognosis, Spain, Tissue Donors, Models, Statistical, Multivariate Analysis, Liver Transplantation, Neural Networks, Computer, Young Adult, Transplant Recipients

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review