Cited by 46Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationArtificial Intelligence in HealthcareOrgan Donation and Transplantation

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 32 of the 32 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Artificial intelligence and organ transplantation: challenges and expectations

Briceño, Javier·2020·Current Opinion in Organ Transplantation

Abstract

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Classifiers based on artificial intelligence have emerged in all areas of medicine. Although very subtle, many decisions in organ transplantation can now be addressed in a more concisely manner with the support of these classifiers. RECENT FINDINGS: Any aspect of organ transplantation (image processing, prediction of results, diagnostic proposals, therapeutic algorithms or precision treatments) consists of a set of input variables and a set of output variables. Artificial intelligence classifiers differ in the way they establish relationships between the input variables, how they select the data groups to train patterns and how they are able to predict the possible options of the output variables. There are hundreds of classifiers to achieve this goal. The most appropriate classifiers to address the different aspects of organ transplantation are Artificial Neural Networks, Decision Tree classifiers, Random Forest, and Naïve Bayes classification models. There are hundreds of examples of the usefulness of artificial intelligence in organ transplantation, especially in image processing, organ allocation, D-R matching, precision pathology, real-time immunosuppression, transplant oncology, and predictive analysis. SUMMARY: In the coming years, clinical transplant experts will increasingly use Deep Learning-based models to support their decisions, specially in those cases where subjectivity is common.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/mot.0000000000000775

Cites

32 of 32 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

  • Current allocation systems cannot prioritize recipients in real time and need constant modifications and addition of exceptions.

    “Whilst well integrated into clinical practice, these systems cannot prioritize recipients in real time and need constant modifications (7) and addition of exceptions.”

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Briceño, J.
Affiliations
Instituto Maimónides de Investigación Biomédica de Córdoba (ES)
Corresponding author
Briceño, Javier
Venue
Current Opinion in Organ Transplantation
Published
2020-06-01
Volume
25
Issue
4
Pages
393-398
ISSN
  • 1087-2418 (ISSN-L)
  • 1531-7013
OpenAlex
W3031288039
Cited by
46
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 2
FWCI
2.21
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Current Opinion in Organ Transplantation (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Organ Donation and Transplantation
Keywords
artificial intelligence, organ transplantation, machine learning classifiers, artificial neural networks, decision tree classification, random forest, naive Bayes, organ allocation, donor-recipient matching, transplant immunosuppression, transplant oncology, predictive analytics, medical image processing
MeSH terms
Artificial Intelligence, Bayes Theorem, Humans, Organ Transplantation, Neural Networks, Computer

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