ArticleFrontiers in artificial intelligence2025
Novel machine learning models for the prediction of acute respiratory distress syndrome after liver transplantation.
Article in Frontiers in artificial intelligence, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Emerging applications of traditional and generative artificial intelligence in liver transplantation.Liver transplantation : official publication of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases and the International Liver Transplantation Society · 2026Article
- Early Prediction of Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome in Critically Ill Polytrauma Patients Using Balanced Random Forest ML: A Retrospective Cohort Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Early prediction of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) after liver transplantation (LT) facilitates timely intervention. We aimed to develop a predictor of post-LT ARDS using machine learning (ML) methods. Data from 755 patients in the internal validation set and 115 patients in the external validation set were retrospectively reviewed, covering demographics, etiology, medical history, laboratory results, and perioperative data. According to the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC), accuracy, specificity, sensitivity, and F1-value, the prediction performance of seven ML models, including logistic regression (LR), decision tree, random forest (RF), gradient boosting decision tree (GBDT), naïve bayes (NB), light gradient boosting machine (LGBM) and extreme gradient boosting (XGB) were evaluated and compared with acute lung injury prediction scores (LIPS). 234 (30.99%) ARDS patients were diagnosed. The RF model had the best performance, with an AUROC of 0.766 (accuracy: 0.722, sensitivity: 0.617) in the internal validation set and a comparable AUROC of 0.844 (accuracy: 0.809, sensitivity: 0.750) in the external validation set. The performance of all ML models was better than LIPS (AUROC 0.692, 0.776). The predictor variables included the age of the recipient, BMI, MELD score, total bilirubin, prothrombin time, operation time, standard urine volume, total intake volume, and red blood cell infusion volume. We firstly developed a risk predictor of post-LT ARDS based on RF model to ameliorate clinical practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.