Achieving clinically optimal balance between accuracy and simplicity of a formula for manual use: Development of a simple formula for estimating liver graft weight with donor anthropometrics

In developing a formula for manual use in clinical settings, simplicity is as important as accuracy. Whole-liver (WL) mass is often estimated using demographic and anthropometric information to calculate the standard liver volume or recommended graft volume in liver transplantation. Multiple formulas for estimating WL mass have been reported, including those with multiple independent variables. However, it is unknown whether multivariable models lead to clinically meaningful improvements in accuracy over univariable models. Our goal was to quantitatively define clinically meaningful improvements in accuracy, which justifies an additional independent variable, and to identify an estimation formula for WL graft weight that best balances accuracy and simplicity given the criterion. From the Japanese Liver Transplantation Society registry, which contains data on all liver transplant cases in Japan, 129 WL donor-graft pairs were extracted. Among the candidate models, those with the smallest cross-validation (CV) root-mean-square error (RMSE) were selected, penalizing model complexity by requiring more complex models to yield a ≥5% decrease in CV RMSE. The winning model by voting with random subsets was fitted to the entire dataset to obtain the final formula. External validity was assessed using CV. A simple univariable linear regression formula using body weight (BW) was obtained as follows: WL graft weight [g] = 14.8 × BW [kg] + 439.2. The CV RMSE (g) and coefficient of determination (R(2)) were 195.2 and 0.548, respectively. In summary, in the development of a simple formula for manually estimating WL weight using demographic and anthropometric variables, a clinically acceptable trade-off between accuracy and simplicity was quantitatively defined, and the best model was selected using this criterion. A univariable linear model using BW achieved a clinically optimal balance between simplicity and accuracy, while one using body surface area performed similarly.