Artificial intelligence optimizes immune rejection prediction and management in heart transplantation: a structured narrative review - Summary - MDSpire

Artificial intelligence optimizes immune rejection prediction and management in heart transplantation: a structured narrative review

  • By

  • Kaixin Chen

  • Junlin Lai

  • Yijie Luo

  • Chenghao Li

  • Guohua Wang

  • May 14, 2026

  • 0 min

Share

Objective:

To synthesize recent advances in AI applications for improving donor-recipient matching, non-invasive rejection surveillance, and pathological diagnosis in heart transplantation, focusing on studies published between October 1, 2020, and October 1, 2025.

Key Findings:
  • 3D-Convolutional Neural Networks (3D-CNNs) enabled accurate total cardiac volume measurement for donor-recipient matching, highlighting the need for methodological rigor.
  • Machine learning models identified non-linear risk factors for postoperative adverse events, outperforming traditional models.
  • AI models integrating non-invasive biomarkers showed high diagnostic accuracy for rejection, potentially reducing unnecessary EMB procedures.
  • AI improved sensitivity for detecting high-grade acute cellular rejection from 39.5% to 74.4% compared to manual assessments.
Interpretation:

AI has the potential to significantly enhance heart transplantation practices by optimizing matching, enabling non-invasive monitoring, and improving diagnostic accuracy, but current evidence is limited by methodological issues that need to be addressed.

Limitations:
  • Most studies were single-center and retrospective, limiting generalizability.
  • Small sample sizes and lack of independent external validation were common.
  • Diverse populations were often not represented, affecting the applicability of findings.
Conclusion:

While AI shows promise in heart transplantation, further research is needed to validate findings through prospective, multi-center studies and to standardize reporting practices for clinical integration, addressing current methodological limitations.

Original Source(s)

Related Content