Artificial intelligence in liver transplant allocation: Promise, pitfalls, and ethical safeguards.

IF 3.9
Sreeya Reddy, Sarah R Lieber, Ashley Spann, Alexandra T Strauss, Mark Pedersen, Madhukar S Patel, Arjmand Mufti, Lisa B VanWagner
{"title":"Artificial intelligence in liver transplant allocation: Promise, pitfalls, and ethical safeguards.","authors":"Sreeya Reddy, Sarah R Lieber, Ashley Spann, Alexandra T Strauss, Mark Pedersen, Madhukar S Patel, Arjmand Mufti, Lisa B VanWagner","doi":"10.1097/LVT.0000000000000997","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Liver transplantation (LT) is an ethically complex procedure that involves allocating a limited, life-saving resource. For over 20 years, the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score and its variations have implemented a sickest-first ethical approach, enhancing waitlist survival rates and adding objectivity to the process. Nonetheless, ongoing disparities based on sex, race, and other structural factors reveal the shortcomings of relying on simplified, static models of disease severity. As LT progresses into an era increasingly shaped by artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML), these algorithms offer better predictions of waitlist mortality, post-transplant outcomes, and donor-recipient matching. However, higher predictive accuracy does not automatically lead to more ethical distribution. In this Perspective, we explore AI-assisted deceased donor liver allocation through the ethical principles of justice, respect for persons, and humanism. We review emerging AI/ML models proposed for LT, highlighting their potential advantages and risks, including amplification of historical inequities embedded in training data, lack of transparency, erosion of informed consent, and overreliance on algorithmic outputs at the expense of clinical judgment. We contend that AI should serve as decision support rather than a decision-maker, and that ethical implementation requires deliberate safeguards. We suggest a framework for responsibly integrating AI into liver allocation focused on fairness monitoring, transparency, explainability, human oversight, and multi-stakeholder governance. When applied properly, AI can potentially enhance both utility and equity in liver transplantation-but only if its use is guided by clear ethical principles and ongoing evaluation in real-world clinical settings.</p>","PeriodicalId":520704,"journal":{"name":"Liver transplantation : official publication of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases and the International Liver Transplantation Society","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Liver transplantation : official publication of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases and the International Liver Transplantation Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/LVT.0000000000000997","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Liver transplantation (LT) is an ethically complex procedure that involves allocating a limited, life-saving resource. For over 20 years, the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score and its variations have implemented a sickest-first ethical approach, enhancing waitlist survival rates and adding objectivity to the process. Nonetheless, ongoing disparities based on sex, race, and other structural factors reveal the shortcomings of relying on simplified, static models of disease severity. As LT progresses into an era increasingly shaped by artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML), these algorithms offer better predictions of waitlist mortality, post-transplant outcomes, and donor-recipient matching. However, higher predictive accuracy does not automatically lead to more ethical distribution. In this Perspective, we explore AI-assisted deceased donor liver allocation through the ethical principles of justice, respect for persons, and humanism. We review emerging AI/ML models proposed for LT, highlighting their potential advantages and risks, including amplification of historical inequities embedded in training data, lack of transparency, erosion of informed consent, and overreliance on algorithmic outputs at the expense of clinical judgment. We contend that AI should serve as decision support rather than a decision-maker, and that ethical implementation requires deliberate safeguards. We suggest a framework for responsibly integrating AI into liver allocation focused on fairness monitoring, transparency, explainability, human oversight, and multi-stakeholder governance. When applied properly, AI can potentially enhance both utility and equity in liver transplantation-but only if its use is guided by clear ethical principles and ongoing evaluation in real-world clinical settings.

人工智能在肝移植分配中的应用:前景、缺陷和伦理保障。
肝移植(LT)是一个伦理上复杂的程序,涉及分配有限的挽救生命的资源。二十多年来,终末期肝病模型(MELD)评分及其变体已经实施了病情优先的伦理方法,提高了等待名单的存活率,并增加了过程的客观性。然而,基于性别、种族和其他结构性因素的持续差异揭示了依赖简化的、静态的疾病严重程度模型的缺点。随着LT进入人工智能(AI)和机器学习(ML)的时代,这些算法可以更好地预测候补名单死亡率、移植后结果和供体-受体匹配。然而,更高的预测准确性并不会自动导致更多的道德分布。从这个角度来看,我们通过公正、尊重人、人道主义的伦理原则来探索人工智能辅助的死者供体肝脏分配。我们回顾了为LT提出的新兴AI/ML模型,强调了它们的潜在优势和风险,包括放大训练数据中嵌入的历史不公平,缺乏透明度,知情同意的侵蚀,以及以牺牲临床判断为代价过度依赖算法输出。我们认为,人工智能应该作为决策支持而不是决策者,道德的实施需要深思熟虑的保障。我们建议建立一个框架,将人工智能负责任地整合到肝脏分配中,重点是公平监测、透明度和可解释性、人类监督和多利益相关者治理。如果应用得当,人工智能可以潜在地提高肝移植的效用和公平性,但前提是它的使用受到明确的伦理原则的指导,并在现实世界的临床环境中进行持续评估。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书