Evaluating Global and Temporal Trends in Pancreas and Islet Cell Transplantation: Public Awareness and Engagement.

BACKGROUND: Pancreas transplantation is a crucial surgical intervention for managing diabetes, but it faces challenges such as its invasive nature, stringent patient selection criteria, organ scarcity, and centralized expertise. Despite the steadily increasing number of pancreas transplants in the United States, there is a need to understand global trends in interest to increase awareness of and participation in pancreas and islet cell transplantation. METHODS: We analyzed Google Search trends for "Pancreas Transplantation" and "Islet Cell Transplantation" from 2004 to 14 November 2023, assessing variations in search interest over time and across geographical locations. The Augmented Dickey-Fuller (ADF) test was used to determine the stationarity of the trends (p < 0.05). RESULTS: Search interest for "Pancreas Transplantation" varied from its 2004 baseline, with a general decline in peak interest over time. The lowest interest was in December 2010, with a slight increase by November 2023. Ecuador, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia showed the highest search interest. "Islet Cell Transplantation" had its lowest interest in December 2016 and a more pronounced decline over time, with Poland, China, and South Korea having the highest search volumes. In the U.S., "Pancreas Transplantation" ranked 4th in interest, while "Islet Cell Transplantation" ranked 11th. The ADF test confirmed the stationarity of the search trends for both procedures. CONCLUSIONS: "Pancreas Transplantation" and "Islet Cell Transplantation" showed initial peaks in search interest followed by a general downtrend. The stationary search trends suggest a lack of significant fluctuations or cyclical variations. These findings highlight the need for enhanced educational initiatives to increase the understanding and awareness of these critical transplant procedures among the public and professionals.

AI-driven translations for kidney transplant equity in Hispanic populations.

Health equity and accessing Spanish kidney transplant information continues being a substantial challenge facing the Hispanic community. This study evaluated ChatGPT's capabilities in translating 54 English kidney transplant frequently asked questions (FAQs) into Spanish using two versions of the AI model, GPT-3.5 and GPT-4.0. The FAQs included 19 from Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN), 15 from National Health Service (NHS), and 20 from National Kidney Foundation (NKF). Two native Spanish-speaking nephrologists, both of whom are of Mexican heritage, scored the translations for linguistic accuracy and cultural sensitivity tailored to Hispanics using a 1-5 rubric. The inter-rater reliability of the evaluators, measured by Cohen's Kappa, was 0.85. Overall linguistic accuracy was 4.89 ± 0.31 for GPT-3.5 versus 4.94 ± 0.23 for GPT-4.0 (non-significant p = 0.23). Both versions scored 4.96 ± 0.19 in cultural sensitivity (p = 1.00). By source, GPT-3.5 linguistic accuracy was 4.84 ± 0.37 (OPTN), 4.93 ± 0.26 (NHS), 4.90 ± 0.31 (NKF). GPT-4.0 scored 4.95 ± 0.23 (OPTN), 4.93 ± 0.26 (NHS), 4.95 ± 0.22 (NKF). For cultural sensitivity, GPT-3.5 scored 4.95 ± 0.23 (OPTN), 4.93 ± 0.26 (NHS), 5.00 ± 0.00 (NKF), while GPT-4.0 scored 5.00 ± 0.00 (OPTN), 5.00 ± 0.00 (NHS), 4.90 ± 0.31 (NKF). These high linguistic and cultural sensitivity scores demonstrate Chat GPT effectively translated the English FAQs into Spanish across systems. The findings suggest Chat GPT's potential to promote health equity by improving Spanish access to essential kidney transplant information. Additional research should evaluate its medical translation capabilities across diverse contexts/languages. These English-to-Spanish translations may increase access to vital transplant information for underserved Spanish-speaking Hispanic patients.

Empowering inclusivity: improving readability of living kidney donation information with ChatGPT.

Background: Addressing disparities in living kidney donation requires making information accessible across literacy levels, especially important given that the average American adult reads at an 8th-grade level. This study evaluated the effectiveness of ChatGPT, an advanced AI language model, in simplifying living kidney donation information to an 8th-grade reading level or below. Methods: We used ChatGPT versions 3.5 and 4.0 to modify 27 questions and answers from Donate Life America, a key resource on living kidney donation. We measured the readability of both original and modified texts using the Flesch-Kincaid formula. A paired t-test was conducted to assess changes in readability levels, and a statistical comparison between the two ChatGPT versions was performed. Results: Originally, the FAQs had an average reading level of 9.6 ± 1.9. Post-modification, ChatGPT 3.5 achieved an average readability level of 7.72 ± 1.85, while ChatGPT 4.0 reached 4.30 ± 1.71, both with a p-value <0.001 indicating significant reduction. ChatGPT 3.5 made 59.26% of answers readable below 8th-grade level, whereas ChatGPT 4.0 did so for 96.30% of the texts. The grade level range for modified answers was 3.4-11.3 for ChatGPT 3.5 and 1-8.1 for ChatGPT 4.0. Conclusion: Both ChatGPT 3.5 and 4.0 effectively lowered the readability grade levels of complex medical information, with ChatGPT 4.0 being more effective. This suggests ChatGPT's potential role in promoting diversity and equity in living kidney donation, indicating scope for further refinement in making medical information more accessible.

Electrocardiography-based Artificial Intelligence Algorithms Aid in Prediction of Long-term Mortality After Kidney Transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Predicting long-term mortality postkidney transplantation (KT) using baseline clinical data presents significant challenges. This study aims to evaluate the predictive power of artificial intelligence (AI)-enabled analysis of preoperative electrocardiograms (ECGs) in forecasting long-term mortality following KT. METHODS: We analyzed preoperative ECGs from KT recipients at three Mayo Clinic sites (Minnesota, Florida, and Arizona) between January 1, 2006, and July 30, 2021. The study involved 6 validated AI algorithms, each trained to predict future development of atrial fibrillation, aortic stenosis, low ejection fraction, hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, amyloid heart disease, and biological age. These algorithms' outputs based on a single preoperative ECG were correlated with patient mortality data. RESULTS: Among 6504 KT recipients included in the study, 1764 (27.1%) died within a median follow-up of 5.7 y (interquartile range: 3.00-9.29 y). All AI-ECG algorithms were independently associated with long-term all-cause mortality (P < 0.001). Notably, few patients had a clinical cardiac diagnosis at the time of transplant, indicating that AI-ECG scores were predictive even in asymptomatic patients. When adjusted for multiple clinical factors such as recipient age, diabetes, and pretransplant dialysis, AI algorithms for atrial fibrillation and aortic stenosis remained independently associated with long-term mortality. These algorithms also improved the C-statistic for predicting overall (C = 0.74) and cardiac-related deaths (C = 0.751). CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest that AI-enabled preoperative ECG analysis can be a valuable tool in predicting long-term mortality following KT and could aid in identifying patients who may benefit from enhanced cardiac monitoring because of increased risk.

The impact of induction therapy on the risk of posttransplant lymphoproliferative disorder in adult kidney transplant recipients with donor-recipient serological Epstein-Barr virus mismatch.

Posttransplant lymphoproliferative disorder (PTLD) poses a significant concern in Epstein-Barr virus (EBV)-negative patients transplanted from EBV-positive donors (EBV R-/D+). Previous studies investigating the association between different induction agents and PTLD in these patients have yielded conflicting results. Using the Organ Procurement and Transplant Network database, we identified EBV R-/D+ patients >18 years of age who underwent kidney-alone transplants between 2016 and 2022 and compared the risk of PTLD with rabbit antithymocyte globulin (ATG), basiliximab, and alemtuzumab inductions. Among the 6620 patients included, 64.0% received ATG, 23.4% received basiliximab, and 12.6% received alemtuzumab. The overall incidence of PTLD was 2.5% over a median follow-up period of 2.9 years. Multivariable analysis demonstrated that the risk of PTLD was significantly higher with ATG and alemtuzumab compared with basiliximab (adjusted subdistribution hazard ratio [aSHR] = 1.98, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.29-3.04, P = .002 for ATG and aSHR = 1.80, 95% CI 1.04-3.11, P = .04 for alemtuzumab). However, PTLD risk was comparable between ATG and alemtuzumab inductions (aSHR = 1.13, 95% CI 0.72-1.77, P = .61). Therefore, the risk of PTLD must be taken into consideration when selecting the most appropriate induction therapy for this patient population.

Distinct clinical profiles and post-transplant outcomes among kidney transplant recipients with lower education levels: uncovering patterns through machine learning clustering.

BACKGROUND: Educational attainment significantly influences post-transplant outcomes in kidney transplant patients. However, research on specific attributes of lower-educated subgroups remains underexplored. This study utilized unsupervised machine learning to segment kidney transplant recipients based on education, further analyzing the relationship between these segments and post-transplant results. METHODS: Using the OPTN/UNOS 2017-2019 data, consensus clustering was applied to 20,474 kidney transplant recipients, all below a college/university educational threshold. The analysis concentrated on recipient, donor, and transplant features, aiming to discern pivotal attributes for each cluster and compare post-transplant results. RESULTS: Four distinct clusters emerged. Cluster 1 comprised younger, non-diabetic, first-time recipients from non-hypertensive younger donors. Cluster 2 predominantly included white patients receiving their first-time kidney transplant either preemptively or within three years, mainly from living donors. Cluster 3 included younger re-transplant recipients, marked by elevated PRA, fewer HLA mismatches. In contrast, Cluster 4 captured older, diabetic patients transplanted after prolonged dialysis duration, primarily from lower-grade donors. Interestingly, Cluster 2 showcased the most favorable post-transplant outcomes. Conversely, Clusters 1, 3, and 4 revealed heightened risks for graft failure and mortality in comparison. CONCLUSIONS: Through unsupervised machine learning, this study proficiently categorized kidney recipients with lesser education into four distinct clusters. Notably, the standout performance of Cluster 2 provides invaluable insights, underscoring the necessity for adept risk assessment and tailored transplant strategies, potentially elevating care standards for this patient cohort.

Enhancing Kidney Transplant Care through the Integration of Chatbot.

Kidney transplantation is a critical treatment option for end-stage kidney disease patients, offering improved quality of life and increased survival rates. However, the complexities of kidney transplant care necessitate continuous advancements in decision making, patient communication, and operational efficiency. This article explores the potential integration of a sophisticated chatbot, an AI-powered conversational agent, to enhance kidney transplant practice and potentially improve patient outcomes. Chatbots and generative AI have shown promising applications in various domains, including healthcare, by simulating human-like interactions and generating contextually appropriate responses. Noteworthy AI models like ChatGPT by OpenAI, BingChat by Microsoft, and Bard AI by Google exhibit significant potential in supporting evidence-based research and healthcare decision making. The integration of chatbots in kidney transplant care may offer transformative possibilities. As a clinical decision support tool, it could provide healthcare professionals with real-time access to medical literature and guidelines, potentially enabling informed decision making and improved knowledge dissemination. Additionally, the chatbot has the potential to facilitate patient education by offering personalized and understandable information, addressing queries, and providing guidance on post-transplant care. Furthermore, under clinician or transplant pharmacist supervision, it has the potential to support post-transplant care and medication management by analyzing patient data, which may lead to tailored recommendations on dosages, monitoring schedules, and potential drug interactions. However, to fully ascertain its effectiveness and safety in these roles, further studies and validation are required. Its integration with existing clinical decision support systems may enhance risk stratification and treatment planning, contributing to more informed and efficient decision making in kidney transplant care. Given the importance of ethical considerations and bias mitigation in AI integration, future studies may evaluate long-term patient outcomes, cost-effectiveness, user experience, and the generalizability of chatbot recommendations. By addressing these factors and potentially leveraging AI capabilities, the integration of chatbots in kidney transplant care holds promise for potentially improving patient outcomes, enhancing decision making, and fostering the equitable and responsible use of AI in healthcare.

Characteristics of Kidney Transplant Recipients with Prolonged Pre-Transplant Dialysis Duration as Identified by Machine Learning Consensus Clustering: Pathway to Personalized Care.

Longer pre-transplant dialysis duration is known to be associated with worse post-transplant outcomes. Our study aimed to cluster kidney transplant recipients with prolonged dialysis duration before transplant using an unsupervised machine learning approach to better assess heterogeneity within this cohort. We performed consensus cluster analysis based on recipient-, donor-, and transplant-related characteristics in 5092 kidney transplant recipients who had been on dialysis ≥ 10 years prior to transplant in the OPTN/UNOS database from 2010 to 2019. We characterized each assigned cluster and compared the posttransplant outcomes. Overall, the majority of patients with ≥10 years of dialysis duration were black (52%) or Hispanic (25%), with only a small number (17.6%) being moderately sensitized. Within this cohort, three clinically distinct clusters were identified. Cluster 1 patients were younger, non-diabetic and non-sensitized, had a lower body mass index (BMI) and received a kidney transplant from younger donors. Cluster 2 recipients were older, unsensitized and had a higher BMI; they received kidney transplant from older donors. Cluster 3 recipients were more likely to be female with a higher PRA. Compared to cluster 1, cluster 2 had lower 5-year death-censored graft (HR 1.40; 95% CI 1.16-1.71) and patient survival (HR 2.98; 95% CI 2.43-3.68). Clusters 1 and 3 had comparable death-censored graft and patient survival. Unsupervised machine learning was used to characterize kidney transplant recipients with prolonged pre-transplant dialysis into three clinically distinct clusters with variable but good post-transplant outcomes. Despite a dialysis duration ≥ 10 years, excellent outcomes were observed in most recipients, including those with moderate sensitization. A disproportionate number of minority recipients were observed within this cohort, suggesting multifactorial delays in accessing kidney transplantation.

Differences between Kidney Transplant Recipients from Deceased Donors with Diabetes Mellitus as Identified by Machine Learning Consensus Clustering.

Clinical outcomes of deceased donor kidney transplants coming from diabetic donors currently remain inconsistent, possibly due to high heterogeneities in this population. Our study aimed to cluster recipients of diabetic deceased donor kidney transplants using an unsupervised machine learning approach in order to identify subgroups with high risk of inferior outcomes and potential variables associated with these outcomes. Consensus cluster analysis was performed based on recipient-, donor-, and transplant-related characteristics in 7876 recipients of diabetic deceased donor kidney transplants from 2010 to 2019 in the OPTN/UNOS database. We determined the important characteristics of each assigned cluster and compared the post-transplant outcomes between the clusters. Consensus cluster analysis identified three clinically distinct clusters. Recipients in cluster 1 (n = 2903) were characterized by oldest age (64 ± 8 years), highest rate of comorbid diabetes mellitus (55%). They were more likely to receive kidney allografts from donors that were older (58 ± 6.3 years), had hypertension (89%), met expanded criteria donor (ECD) status (78%), had a high rate of cerebrovascular death (63%), and carried a high kidney donor profile index (KDPI). Recipients in cluster 2 (n = 687) were younger (49 ± 13 years) and all were re-transplant patients with higher panel reactive antibodies (PRA) (88 [IQR 46, 98]) who received kidneys from younger (44 ± 11 years), non-ECD deceased donors (88%) with low numbers of HLA mismatch (4 [IQR 2, 5]). The cluster 3 cohort was characterized by first-time kidney transplant recipients (100%) who received kidney allografts from younger (42 ± 11 years), non-ECD deceased donors (98%). Compared to cluster 3, cluster 1 had higher incidence of primary non-function, delayed graft function, patient death and death-censored graft failure, whereas cluster 2 had higher incidence of delayed graft function and death-censored graft failure but comparable primary non-function and patient death. An unsupervised machine learning approach characterized diabetic donor kidney transplant patients into three clinically distinct clusters with differing outcomes. Our data highlight opportunities to improve utilization of high KDPI kidneys coming from diabetic donors in recipients with survival-limiting comorbidities such as those observed in cluster 1.

Differences between Very Highly Sensitized Kidney Transplant Recipients as Identified by Machine Learning Consensus Clustering.

Background and Objectives: The aim of our study was to categorize very highly sensitized kidney transplant recipients with pre-transplant panel reactive antibody (PRA) ≥ 98% using an unsupervised machine learning approach as clinical outcomes for this population are inferior, despite receiving increased allocation priority. Identifying subgroups with higher risks for inferior outcomes is essential to guide individualized management strategies for these vulnerable recipients. Materials and Methods: To achieve this, we analyzed the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN)/United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) database from 2010 to 2019 and performed consensus cluster analysis based on the recipient-, donor-, and transplant-related characteristics in 7458 kidney transplant patients with pre-transplant PRA ≥ 98%. The key characteristics of each cluster were identified by calculating the standardized mean difference. The post-transplant outcomes were compared between the assigned clusters. Results: We identified two distinct clusters and compared the post-transplant outcomes among the assigned clusters of very highly sensitized kidney transplant patients. Cluster 1 patients were younger (median age 45 years), male predominant, and more likely to have previously undergone a kidney transplant, but had less diabetic kidney disease. Cluster 2 recipients were older (median 54 years), female predominant, and more likely to be undergoing a first-time transplant. While patient survival was comparable between the two clusters, cluster 1 had lower death-censored graft survival and higher acute rejection compared to cluster 2. Conclusions: The unsupervised machine learning approach categorized very highly sensitized kidney transplant patients into two clinically distinct clusters with differing post-transplant outcomes. A better understanding of these clinically distinct subgroups may assist the transplant community in developing individualized care strategies and improving the outcomes for very highly sensitized kidney transplant patients.

Distinct Phenotypes of Non-Citizen Kidney Transplant Recipients in the United States by Machine Learning Consensus Clustering.

BACKGROUND: Better understanding of the different phenotypes/subgroups of non-U.S. citizen kidney transplant recipients may help the transplant community to identify strategies that improve outcomes among non-U.S. citizen kidney transplant recipients. This study aimed to cluster non-U.S. citizen kidney transplant recipients using an unsupervised machine learning approach; Methods: We conducted a consensus cluster analysis based on recipient-, donor-, and transplant- related characteristics in non-U.S. citizen kidney transplant recipients in the United States from 2010 to 2019 in the OPTN/UNOS database using recipient, donor, and transplant-related characteristics. Each cluster's key characteristics were identified using the standardized mean difference. Post-transplant outcomes were compared among the clusters; Results: Consensus cluster analysis was performed in 11,300 non-U.S. citizen kidney transplant recipients and identified two distinct clusters best representing clinical characteristics. Cluster 1 patients were notable for young age, preemptive kidney transplant or dialysis duration of less than 1 year, working income, private insurance, non-hypertensive donors, and Hispanic living donors with a low number of HLA mismatch. In contrast, cluster 2 patients were characterized by non-ECD deceased donors with KDPI <85%. Consequently, cluster 1 patients had reduced cold ischemia time, lower proportion of machine-perfused kidneys, and lower incidence of delayed graft function after kidney transplant. Cluster 2 had higher 5-year death-censored graft failure (5.2% vs. 9.8%; p < 0.001), patient death (3.4% vs. 11.4%; p < 0.001), but similar one-year acute rejection (4.7% vs. 4.9%; p = 0.63), compared to cluster 1; Conclusions: Machine learning clustering approach successfully identified two clusters among non-U.S. citizen kidney transplant recipients with distinct phenotypes that were associated with different outcomes, including allograft loss and patient survival. These findings underscore the need for individualized care for non-U.S. citizen kidney transplant recipients.

Development of a portable abdominal normothermic regional perfusion (A-NRP) program in the United States.

In situ abdominal normothermic regional perfusion (A-NRP) has been used for liver transplantation (LT) with donation after circulatory death (DCD) liver grafts in Europe with excellent results; however, adoption of A-NRP in the United States has been lacking. The current report describes the implementation and results of a portable, self-reliant A-NRP program in the United States. Isolated abdominal in situ perfusion with an extracorporeal circuit was achieved through cannulation in the abdomen or femoral vessels and inflation of a supraceliac aortic balloon and cross-clamp. The Quantum Transport System by Spectrum was used. The decision to use livers for LT was made through an assessment of perfusate lactate (q15min). From May to November 2022, 14 A-NRP donation after circulatory death procurements were performed by our abdominal transplant team (N = 11 LT, N = 20 kidney transplants, and 1 kidney-pancreas transplant). The median A-NRP run time was 68 minutes. None of the LT recipients had post-reperfusion syndrome, nor were there any cases of primary nonfunction. All livers were functioning well at the time of maximal follow-up with zero cases of ischemic cholangiopathy. The current report describes the feasibility of a portable A-NRP program that can be used in the United States. Excellent short-term post-transplant results were achieved with both livers and kidneys procured from A-NRP.

Distinct phenotypes of kidney transplant recipients aged 80 years or older in the USA by machine learning consensus clustering.

Objectives: This study aimed to identify distinct clusters of very elderly kidney transplant recipients aged ≥80 and assess clinical outcomes among these unique clusters. Design: Cohort study with machine learning (ML) consensus clustering approach. Setting and participants: All very elderly (age ≥80 at time of transplant) kidney transplant recipients in the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network/United Network for Organ Sharing database database from 2010 to 2019. Main outcome measures: Distinct clusters of very elderly kidney transplant recipients and their post-transplant outcomes including death-censored graft failure, overall mortality and acute allograft rejection among the assigned clusters. Results: Consensus cluster analysis was performed in 419 very elderly kidney transplant and identified three distinct clusters that best represented the clinical characteristics of very elderly kidney transplant recipients. Recipients in cluster 1 received standard Kidney Donor Profile Index (KDPI) non-extended criteria donor (ECD) kidneys from deceased donors. Recipients in cluster 2 received kidneys from older, hypertensive ECD deceased donors with a KDPI score ≥85%. Kidneys for cluster 2 patients had longer cold ischaemia time and the highest use of machine perfusion. Recipients in clusters 1 and 2 were more likely to be on dialysis at the time of transplant (88.3%, 89.4%). Recipients in cluster 3 were more likely to be preemptive (39%) or had a dialysis duration less than 1 year (24%). These recipients received living donor kidney transplants. Cluster 3 had the most favourable post-transplant outcomes. Compared with cluster 3, cluster 1 had comparable survival but higher death-censored graft failure, while cluster 2 had lower patient survival, higher death-censored graft failure and more acute rejection. Conclusions: Our study used an unsupervised ML approach to cluster very elderly kidney transplant recipients into three clinically unique clusters with distinct post-transplant outcomes. These findings from an ML clustering approach provide additional understanding towards individualised medicine and opportunities to improve care for very elderly kidney transplant recipients.

Differences between kidney retransplant recipients as identified by machine learning consensus clustering.

BACKGROUND: Our study aimed to characterize kidney retransplant recipients using an unsupervised machine-learning approach. METHODS: We performed consensus cluster analysis based on the recipient-, donor-, and transplant-related characteristics in 17 443 kidney retransplant recipients in the OPTN/UNOS database from 2010 to 2019. We identified each cluster's key characteristics using the standardized mean difference of >.3. We compared the posttransplant outcomes, including death-censored graft failure and patient death among the assigned clusters RESULTS: Consensus cluster analysis identified three distinct clusters of kidney retransplant recipients. Cluster 1 recipients were predominantly white and were less sensitized. They were most likely to receive a living donor kidney transplant and more likely to be preemptive (30%) or need ≤1 year of dialysis (32%). In contrast, cluster 2 recipients were the most sensitized (median PRA 95%). They were more likely to have been on dialysis >1 year, and receive a nationally allocated, low HLA mismatch, standard KDPI deceased donor kidney. Recipients in cluster 3 were more likely to be minorities (37% Black; 15% Hispanic). They were moderately sensitized with a median PRA of 87% and were also most likely to have been on dialysis >1 year. They received locally allocated high HLA mismatch kidneys from standard KDPI deceased donors. Thymoglobulin was the most commonly used induction agent for all three clusters. Cluster 1 had the most favorable patient and graft survival, while cluster 3 had the worst patient and graft survival. CONCLUSION: The use of an unsupervised machine learning approach characterized kidney retransplant recipients into three clinically distinct clusters with differing posttransplant outcomes. Recipients with moderate allosensitization, such as those represented in cluster 3, are perhaps more disadvantaged in the kidney retransplantation process. Potential opportunities for improvement specific to these re-transplant recipients include working to improve opportunities to improve access to living donor kidney transplantation, living donor paired exchange and identifying strategies for better HLA matching.

Characteristics of Kidney Recipients of High Kidney Donor Profile Index Kidneys as Identified by Machine Learning Consensus Clustering.

Background: Our study aimed to characterize kidney transplant recipients who received high kidney donor profile index (KDPI) kidneys using unsupervised machine learning approach. Methods: We used the OPTN/UNOS database from 2010 to 2019 to perform consensus cluster analysis based on recipient-, donor-, and transplant-related characteristics in 8935 kidney transplant recipients from deceased donors with KDPI ≥ 85%. We identified each cluster's key characteristics using the standardized mean difference of >0.3. We compared the posttransplant outcomes among the assigned clusters. Results: Consensus cluster analysis identified 6 clinically distinct clusters of kidney transplant recipients from donors with high KDPI. Cluster 1 was characterized by young, black, hypertensive, non-diabetic patients who were on dialysis for more than 3 years before receiving kidney transplant from black donors; cluster 2 by elderly, white, non-diabetic patients who had preemptive kidney transplant or were on dialysis less than 3 years before receiving kidney transplant from older white donors; cluster 3 by young, non-diabetic, retransplant patients; cluster 4 by young, non-obese, non-diabetic patients who received dual kidney transplant from pediatric, black, non-hypertensive non-ECD deceased donors; cluster 5 by low number of HLA mismatch; cluster 6 by diabetes mellitus. Cluster 4 had the best patient survival, whereas cluster 3 had the worst patient survival. Cluster 2 had the best death-censored graft survival, whereas cluster 4 and cluster 3 had the worst death-censored graft survival at 1 and 5 years, respectively. Cluster 2 and cluster 4 had the best overall graft survival at 1 and 5 years, respectively, whereas cluster 3 had the worst overall graft survival. Conclusions: Unsupervised machine learning approach kidney transplant recipients from donors with high KDPI based on their pattern of clinical characteristics into 6 clinically distinct clusters.

Clinical Phenotypes of Dual Kidney Transplant Recipients in the United States as Identified through Machine Learning Consensus Clustering.

Background and Objectives: Our study aimed to cluster dual kidney transplant recipients using an unsupervised machine learning approach to characterize donors and recipients better and to compare the survival outcomes across these various clusters. Materials and Methods: We performed consensus cluster analysis based on recipient-, donor-, and transplant-related characteristics in 2821 dual kidney transplant recipients from 2010 to 2019 in the OPTN/UNOS database. We determined the important characteristics of each assigned cluster and compared the post-transplant outcomes between clusters. Results: Two clinically distinct clusters were identified by consensus cluster analysis. Cluster 1 patients was characterized by younger patients (mean recipient age 49 ± 13 years) who received dual kidney transplant from pediatric (mean donor age 3 ± 8 years) non-expanded criteria deceased donor (100% non-ECD). In contrast, Cluster 2 patients were characterized by older patients (mean recipient age 63 ± 9 years) who received dual kidney transplant from adult (mean donor age 59 ± 11 years) donor with high kidney donor profile index (KDPI) score (59% had KDPI ≥ 85). Cluster 1 had higher patient survival (98.0% vs. 94.6% at 1 year, and 92.1% vs. 76.3% at 5 years), and lower acute rejection (4.2% vs. 6.1% within 1 year), when compared to cluster 2. Death-censored graft survival was comparable between two groups (93.5% vs. 94.9% at 1 year, and 89.2% vs. 84.8% at 5 years). Conclusions: In summary, DKT in the United States remains uncommon. Two clusters, based on specific recipient and donor characteristics, were identified through an unsupervised machine learning approach. Despite varying differences in donor and recipient age between the two clusters, death-censored graft survival was excellent and comparable. Broader utilization of DKT from high KDPI kidneys and pediatric en bloc kidneys should be encouraged to better address the ongoing organ shortage.

Machine Learning Consensus Clustering of Morbidly Obese Kidney Transplant Recipients in the United States.

Background: This study aimed to better characterize morbidly obese kidney transplant recipients, their clinical characteristics, and outcomes by using an unsupervised machine learning approach. Methods: Consensus cluster analysis was applied to OPTN/UNOS data from 2010 to 2019 based on recipient, donor, and transplant characteristics in kidney transplant recipients with a pre-transplant BMI ≥ 40 kg/m2. Key cluster characteristics were identified using the standardized mean difference. Post-transplant outcomes, including death-censored graft failure, patient death, and acute allograft rejection, were compared among the clusters. Results: Consensus clustering analysis identified 3204 kidney transplant recipients with a BMI ≥ 40 kg/m2. In this cohort, five clinically distinct clusters were identified. Cluster 1 recipients were predominantly white and non-sensitized, had a short dialysis time or were preemptive, and were more likely to receive living donor kidney transplants. Cluster 2 recipients were older and diabetic. They were likely to have been on dialysis >3 years and receive a standard KDPI deceased donor kidney. Cluster 3 recipients were young, black, and had kidney disease secondary to hypertension or glomerular disease. Cluster 3 recipients had >3 years of dialysis and received non-ECD, young, deceased donor kidney transplants with a KDPI < 85%. Cluster 4 recipients were diabetic with variable dialysis duration who either received non-ECD standard KDPI kidneys or living donor kidney transplants. Cluster 5 recipients were young retransplants that were sensitized. One-year patient survival in clusters 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 was 98.0%, 94.4%, 98.5%, 98.7%, and 97%, and one-year death-censored graft survival was 98.1%, 93.0%, 96.1%, 98.8%, and 93.0%, respectively. Cluster 2 had the worst one-year patient survival. Clusters 2 and 5 had the worst one-year death-censored graft survival. Conclusions: With the application of unsupervised machine learning, variable post-transplant outcomes are observed among morbidly obese kidney transplant recipients. Recipients with earlier access to transplant and living donation show superior outcomes. Unexpectedly, reduced graft survival in cluster 3 recipients perhaps underscores socioeconomic access to post-transplant support and minorities being disadvantaged in access to preemptive and living donor transplants. Despite obesity-related concerns, one-year patient and graft survival were favorable in all clusters, and obesity itself should be reconsidered as a hard barrier to kidney transplantation.