Statistical methods versus machine learning techniques for donor-recipient matching in liver transplantation

PLoS One. 2021 May 21;16(5):e0252068. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0252068. eCollection 2021.

Abstract

Donor-Recipient (D-R) matching is one of the main challenges to be fulfilled nowadays. Due to the increasing number of recipients and the small amount of donors in liver transplantation, the allocation method is crucial. In this paper, to establish a fair comparison, the United Network for Organ Sharing database was used with 4 different end-points (3 months, and 1, 2 and 5 years), with a total of 39, 189 D-R pairs and 28 donor and recipient variables. Modelling techniques were divided into two groups: 1) classical statistical methods, including Logistic Regression (LR) and Naïve Bayes (NB), and 2) standard machine learning techniques, including Multilayer Perceptron (MLP), Random Forest (RF), Gradient Boosting (GB) or Support Vector Machines (SVM), among others. The methods were compared with standard scores, MELD, SOFT and BAR. For the 5-years end-point, LR (AUC = 0.654) outperformed several machine learning techniques, such as MLP (AUC = 0.599), GB (AUC = 0.600), SVM (AUC = 0.624) or RF (AUC = 0.644), among others. Moreover, LR also outperformed standard scores. The same pattern was reproduced for the others 3 end-points. Complex machine learning methods were not able to improve the performance of liver allocation, probably due to the implicit limitations associated to the collection process of the database.

Publication types

  • Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

MeSH terms

  • Bayes Theorem
  • Data Interpretation, Statistical
  • Databases, Factual
  • Histocompatibility Testing / methods
  • Histocompatibility Testing / statistics & numerical data*
  • Humans
  • Liver Transplantation / ethics
  • Liver Transplantation / statistics & numerical data*
  • Logistic Models
  • Support Vector Machine*
  • Tissue Donors / statistics & numerical data*
  • Tissue Donors / supply & distribution
  • Tissue and Organ Procurement / methods
  • Tissue and Organ Procurement / statistics & numerical data*
  • Transplant Recipients / psychology
  • Transplant Recipients / statistics & numerical data*

Grants and funding

DGR, PAG, CHM -> FEDER funds and Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness, grant reference: TIN2017-85887-C2-1-P, webpage: https://sede.mineco.gob.es DGR, PAG, CHM -> Consejería de Salud y Familia de la Junta de Andalucía, grant reference: PS- 2020-780, webpage: https://www.juntadeandalucia.es/organismos/saludyfamilias.html DGR, PAG, CHM -> Consejería de Economía, Conocimiento, Empresas y Universidad de la Junta de Andalucía, grant reference: UCO-1261651, webpage: https://www.juntadeandalucia.es/organismos/transformacioneconomicaindustriaconocimientoyuniversidades.html DGR -> Spanish Ministry of Education and Science, FPU Predoctoral Program, grant reference: FPU16/02128, webpage: https://www.ciencia.gob.es/. JB, MDA, RC -> Fundación Pública Andaluza Progreso y Salud, grant reference: PI-032-2014, webpage: https://www.sspa.juntadeandalucia.es/fundacionprogresoysalud/es. All -> Fundación de Investigación Biomédica de Córdoba (FIBICO), grant reference: PI15/01570, webpage: https://www.imibic.org/fibico. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.