Machine learning to improve organ donation rates and make better matches

From: Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada

Health Canada seeks technological approaches in Deep Learning and Artificial Intelligence to predict the success of possible donor-recipient matches and transplant outcomes to support evidence-based decision-making about organ donation and transplantation.

Sponsoring department: Health Canada

Funding mechanism: Grant

Opening date: August 23, 2019
Closing date: October 18, 2019 14:00 Eastern Daylight Time

Phase 1 award recipients

Challenge

Problem statement

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is poised to transform the field of organ donation and transplantation in Canada. Existing clinical decision support tools include: a tool that provides a standardized and personalized assessment of donor and organ suitability to make decisions about organ retrieval; and, a similar tool that helps kidney failure patients determine if they should accept the donor kidney or wait for a better match. While these tools can be used to help improve clinical decisions in donation and transplantation, AI experts are needed to use Deep Learning to continually enhance the predictive ability of these tools towards improved circulatory determined death (DCD) donation rates and to identify the best potential donor-transplant recipient matches.

The solution will focus on both the organ donor (for all types of organs), and the transplant recipient. For the organ donor, the solution would consider the suitability of the donor and the quality and suitability of the organ by linking it to the recipient's outcome data. For transplant recipients, the tool would help recipients make a better decision about whether to accept the organ that is offered. Currently, as there is a shortage of organs, the solution would focus on kidney transplants, which make up over 60% of all transplants done in Canada. Once more hearts, lungs, and livers are available, the tool could be expanded to other organs.

Desired outcomes and considerations

Essential outcomes

The solution must:

develop a tool that leverages technological approaches in Deep Learning and Artificial Intelligence to:
- Continually improve the predictive ability of real-time, clinical decision support tools so that it may be used by donation and transplant physicians across Canada to accurately identify candidates that are mostly likely to be successful donors;
- Personalize kidney transplantation by predicting the success of potential donor-recipient matches and choosing those with the best chances for excellent long-term transplant outcomes;
- Reduce unsuccessful DCD attempts and improve transplant outcomes, thereby enhancing family experience of donation and optimizing system costs.
develop a tool that is able to match kidneys to transplantation recipients, but is also expandable to other organs, as needed.

Background and Context

Every year, thousands of Canadians receive life-saving, cost-effective organ transplants, while thousands still wait, and hundreds die because not enough organs are available. The practice of donation after circulatory determined death (DCD) has increased the rates of deceased donation in Canada by 40% in the last 10 years but despite this success, many potential DCD donors fail to donate their organs. DCD occurs after withdrawal of life-sustaining measures (WLSM) in consented patients with non-recoverable illness in the intensive care unit. However, prolonged exposure of organs to low oxygen during the dying process after WLSM renders them increasingly unsuitable for transplantation. It is currently very difficult to predict which potential DCD donors will die within a timeframe and a manner that permits successful donation. As a result, over 30% of DCD attempts are unsuccessful, which adds to the anguish of grieving families and unnecessarily consumes vast resources from both the donation and transplant teams. Some centres in Canada refuse to implement DCD programs because of the uncertainty of success.

On the transplant side, patients waiting for a new kidney struggle trying to decide if they should accept the donor kidney or wait on dialysis for a kidney that might provide better short- or long-term outcomes. This decision involves a complex evaluation process that is currently supported by manual calculations and algorithms, which are not informed by current and emerging evidence.

Clinical decision support tools have been developed by the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario Research Institute Inc. and the Centre de recherche du Centre hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal to provide real-time, standardized, personalized assessment of donor and organ suitability to make better decisions about organ retrieval and kidney transplant matches. Although a novel waveform-based variability-derived predictive model has been developed into a clinical decision support tool, healthcare practitioners need to work with AI experts and industry to build the AI interface that will take the prediction tool recently designed and turn it into a living clinical tool that will continue to make better predictions the more data that is collected. Deep Learning to help improve organ donation (prediction of who will be a better donor) has not been funded or developed and is still at the conceptual stage. Deep learning to help make better decision for recipients (should I accept this kidney or wait for the next one) is in early research phases in Montréal and a partnership with AI researchers at the Institute for Data Valorization (IVADO) has begun some work to explore how they would set this up. Innovators would build on early phase research that has been initiated in Montréal and would be expected to work with both the Ottawa and Montréal teams. The innovator would have access to existing data through multi-institution agreements for clinical testing.

Maximum grant value:

Multiple grants could result from this Challenge.

Funding of up to CAD150,000 for up to 6 months could be available for any Phase 1 grant resulting from this Challenge.

Funding of up to CAD1,000,000 for up to 2 years could be available for any Phase 2 grant resulting from this Challenge. Only eligible businesses that received Phase 1 funding could be considered for Phase 2.

This disclosure is made in good faith and does not commit Canada to award any grant for the total maximum funding value.

Travel

For Phase 1 it is anticipated that up to five meetings will require the successful bidder(s) to travel to the locations identified below:

Kick-off meeting in Ottawa, Ontario
Progress Review Meetings: one to three design/progress review meetings by teleconference/videoconference
Final Review Meeting in Ottawa, Ontario.
Innovators may wish to travel to Montréal or Ottawa to work with research teams. Meetings can be held via teleconference/video conference.

Eligibility

Solution proposals can only be submitted by a small business that meets all of the following criteria:

for profit
incorporated in Canada (federally or provincially)
499 or fewer full-time equivalent (FTE) employees^{Footnote *}
research and development activities that take place in Canada
50% or more of its annual wages, salaries and fees are currently paid to employees and contractors who spend the majority of their time working in Canada^{Footnote *}
50% or more of its FTE employees have Canada as their ordinary place of work^{Footnote *}
50% or more of its senior executives (Vice President and above) have Canada as their principal residence^{Footnote *}

Application guide

Evaluation Criteria

Part 1: Mandatory and Minimum Pass Mark Criteria

Proposals must meet all mandatory criteria (Questions 1a and 2) and achieve the minimum pass mark for Question 3 in order to be deemed responsive and proceed to Part 2.

Mandatory and Minimum Pass Mark Criteria (Applicant/Bidder's proposal must address)
Question	Evaluation Schema
1 a. Scope Describe your proposed solution and how it responds to the challenge. Include in your description the scientific and technological basis upon which your solution is proposed and clearly identify how your solution meets all of the Essential Outcomes (if identified) in the Desired Outcomes and Considerations section in the Challenge Notice.	Mandatory — Pass/Fail Pass The Applicant/Bidder's proposed solution is clearly articulated, within the scope for the challenge and addresses all Essential Outcomes (if identified) in the Challenge Notice. Fail There is little or no evidence that the proposed solution is likely to meet the challenge. OR The proposed solution is articulated as out of scope for the challenge. OR The proposed solution does not address all Essential Outcomes listed in the challenge. OR The proposed solution is poorly described and does not permit concrete analysis.
2. Current Technology Readiness Level (TRL) Indicate the current TRL of your proposed solution. (Drop Down Menu of the Application/Bid Submission Form) Describe the research and development activities that have taken place to bring the proposed solution to the stated TRL.	Mandatory — Pass/Fail Pass: The Applicant/Bidder has demonstrated that the proposed solution is currently between TRLs 1 and 4 (inclusive), and provided justification by explaining the research and development (R&D) that has taken place to bring the solution to the stated TRL. Fail: The Applicant/Bidder has not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the current TRL is between 1 to 4 (inclusive) including: There is insufficient/no evidence provided for TRL judgment. The solution involves the development of basic or fundamental research. The solution is at TRL 5 or higher. Insufficient/unclear/no justification explaining the R&D that took place to bring the solution to the stated TRL. The explanation simply paraphrases the description of a given TRL level.
3. Innovation Describe the novelty of your solution and how it advances the state-of-the-art over existing technologies, including competing solutions.	Point Rated with Minimum Pass Mark The minimum pass mark for this criteria is 4 points. 0 points/Fail: The Applicant/Bidder has not demonstrated that the proposed solution advances the state-of-the-art over existing technologies, including available competing solutions; OR The stated advancements are described in general terms but are not substantiated with specific, measurable evidence. 4 points: The Applicant/Bidder has demonstrated that the proposed solution offers one or two minor improvements to existing technologies, including available competing solutions, that have potential to create competitive advantages in existing market niches. 6 points: The Applicant/Bidder has demonstrated that the proposed solution offers three or more minor improvements to existing technologies, including available competing solutions, that together are likely to create competitive advantages in existing market niches; OR The Applicant/Bidder has demonstrated that the proposed solution offers one significant improvement to existing technologies that is likely to create competitive advantages in existing market niches 8 points: The Applicant/Bidder has demonstrated that the proposed solution offers two or more significant improvements to existing technologies, including available competing solutions that are likely to create competitive advantages in existing market niches and could define new market spaces; OR The Applicant/Bidder has demonstrated that the proposed solution can be considered a new benchmark of state of the art that is clearly ahead of competitors and that is likely to define new market spaces

Part 2: Point-Rated Criteria

Proposals that do not achieve the overall minimum score of at least 55 points out of a possible 110 points (50%) will be declared non-responsive and given no further consideration.

The overall minimum score is determined by adding the Applicant/Bidder's scores from the following questions together (1b, 3, 4-13).

Point-Rated Criteria (Applicant/Bidder's proposal to address)
Question	Evaluation Schema
1b. Scope Describe how your proposed solution addresses the Additional Outcomes (if identified) in the Desired Outcomes and Considerations section in the Challenge Notice. If no Additional Outcomes are identified in the Challenge Notice, text entered in this section will not be considered. If no Additional Outcomes are identified in the Challenge Notice, Bidders/Applicants will receive 10 points	Insufficient or no information provided to demonstrate that the solution will address any of the Additional Outcomes. 0 points Information provided clearly demonstrates that the solution will address some (<50%) of the Additional Outcomes. 5 points Information provided clearly demonstrates that the solution will address most (50% or more) of the Additional Outcomes. 8 points Information provided clearly demonstrates that the solution will address all (100%) of the Additional Outcomes. 10 points
4. Phase 1 Science and Technology Risks Identify potential scientific and/or technological risks to the successful development of the proof of concept and how they will be mitigated in Phase 1?	Insufficient or no information provided to demonstrate that the Applicant/Bidder has considered potential risks and mitigation strategies and/or information provided contains significant gaps. 0 points Information provided demonstrates that the Applicant/Bidder has considered some potential risks and associated mitigation strategies but there are minor gaps in risks and/or associated mitigation strategies. 5 points Information provided clearly demonstrates that the Applicant/Bidder has sufficiently considered the risks and defined associated mitigation strategies. 10 points
5. Benefits to Canada Describe the benefits that could result from the successful development of your solution. Applicants/Bidders should consider the potential benefits using the following three categories: Innovation Benefits: Expected contribution towards the enhancement or development of new industrial or technological innovation within your firm. Assessment factors could include: potential spillover benefits, creation of intellectual property, impact on productivity of the new technology, etc. Economic Benefits: Forecasted impact on the growth of Canadian firms, clusters and supply chains, as well as its expected benefits for Canada's workforce. Assessment factors could include: number of jobs created, number of high-paying jobs, project-related revenue growth, etc. Public Benefits: Expected contribution to the broader public, including inclusive business and hiring practices (e.g., gender balance), investment in skills and training and environmental best practices. Assessment would consider the degree to which the Applicant/Bidder demonstrates that the solution is expected to generate social, environmental, health, security or other benefits to Canada. Assessment factors could include: solution-related environmental benefits, investment in local communities and solution-related impact on Indigenous communities.	Innovation Benefits Benefit not identified or insufficient claim of benefit. 0 points Benefit has marginal increment or limited justification. 1.5 points Benefit is significant and well justified. 3 points Economic Benefits Benefit not identified or insufficient claim of benefit. 0 points Benefit has marginal increment or limited justification. 1.5 points Benefit is significant and well justified. 3 points Public Benefits. Benefit not identified or insufficient claim of benefit. 0 points Benefit has marginal increment or limited justification. 1.5 points Benefit is significant and well justified. 3 points
6. Phase 1 Project Plan Demonstrate a feasible Phase 1 project plan by completing the table. Include: Project milestones; project activities under each milestone; time required to complete each milestone (e.g., days, weeks and/or months); (Indicate if any milestones and activities will be completed concurrently) total time required to complete the project; and key success criteria. Note: Phase 1 cannot exceed 6 months and TRL 4.	Insufficient or no information provided to demonstrate a feasible project plan for Phase 1 and/or the project plan exceeds the maximum duration indicated in the Challenge Notice. 0 points Project plan for Phase 1 is conceivably feasible but not clearly demonstrated and/or includes gaps. 5 points Information provided clearly demonstrates a feasible project plan for Phase 1. 10 points
7. Phase 1 Project Risks Identify potential project risks (eg. Human resources, financial, project management, etc) to the successful development of the proof of concept and how they will be mitigated?	Insufficient or no information provided to demonstrate that the Applicant/Bidder has considered potential risks and mitigation strategies and/or information provided contains significant gaps. 0 points Information provided demonstrates that the Applicant/Bidder has considered some potential risks and associated mitigation strategies but there are minor gaps in risks and/or associated mitigation strategies. 5 points Information provided clearly demonstrates that the Applicant/Bidder has sufficiently considered the risks and defined associated mitigation strategies. 10 points
8. Phase 1 Implementation Team Demonstrate how your project implementation team has the required management and technological skill sets and experience to deliver the project plan for Phase 1 by completing the table. A member of the implementation team can have more than one role. Include the labour rates and level of effort for each member. A day is defined as 7.5 hours of work, exclusive of meal breaks. The labour rates and level of effort will be reviewed as part of the evaluation for Question 10.	Insufficient or no information provided to demonstrate that the project team has the required management and technological skill sets and experience to deliver the Phase 1 project plan. 0 points Information is provided but there are minor gaps in required management and/or technological skill sets and/or experience to deliver the Phase 1 project plan. 5 points Information provided clearly demonstrates that the project team has the required management and technological skill sets and experience to deliver the Phase 1 project plan. 10 points
9. Inclusivity If your business were to receive funding from Innovative Solutions Canada, describe what actions (e.g., recruitment strategy, internships, co-op placements, etc.) might be taken in Phase 1 to support the participation of under-represented groups (e.g., women, youth, persons with disabilities, Indigenous people, visible minorities) in the research and development of the proposed solution. Each bidder/applicant in their response to this question must focus only on describing relevant programs, policies, or initiatives that it currently has in place or would put in place to support the R&D effort in Phase 1. Do not provide any personal information of individuals employed by your company or that of your subcontractors in the response below.	No description and/or concrete examples of actions provided that would be taken to encourage greater participation of under-represented groups. 0 points A description and concrete examples of actions to encourage greater participation of under-represented groups provided. 3 points
10. Phase 1 Financial Proposal Demonstrate a realistic financial proposal for the Phase 1 project plan by completing the table.	Insufficient information provided and/or information provided significantly lack credibility. Does not demonstrate a realistic financial proposal for the Phase 1 project plan. 0 points Information is provided but some costs appear to be either over or under estimated for the Phase 1 project plan. 5 points Information provided contains credible elements to clearly demonstrate a realistic financial proposal for the Phase 1 project plan. 10 points
11. Phase 1 Financial Controls, Tracking and Oversight Describe the financial controls, tracking and oversight that will be used to manage the public funds throughout Phase 1.	Insufficient or no information provided to demonstrate the Applicant/Bidder's ability to manage public funds in Phase 1. 0 points Information provided is vague and/or contains gaps. The Applicant/Bidder has some controls, tracking and/or oversight in place to manage the public funds in Phase 1. 5 points Information provided clearly demonstrates that the Applicant/Bidder has strong financial controls, tracking and oversight to manage public funds in Phase 1. 10 points
12. Phase 2 Strategy Describe a realistic strategy for the prototype development if selected to participate in Phase 2. Responses should include: anticipated barriers key tasks estimated cost	Insufficient or no information provided to demonstrate that the Applicant/Bidder has contemplated a realistic strategy for the Phase 2 prototype development. 0 points Information provided demonstrates a conceivably realistic strategy for Phase 2 prototype development, however there are gaps and/or the strategy is vague. 5 points Information provided demonstrates that the Applicant/Bidder has a clear and realistic strategy. 10 points
13. Commercialization Approach Describe your overall commercialization approach for the proposed solution. Responses should include: Target markets (excluding Government of Canada) Non-ISC funding sources Transition to a commercially-ready product or service Any other indicators of commercial potential and commercial feasibility	Insufficient or no information provided to demonstrate that the proposed solution has commercial potential. 0 points Some information provided to demonstrate that the proposed solution has commercial potential, however there are gaps in the commercialization approach. 5 points A realistic commercialization approach is provided that demonstrates that the proposed solution has commercial potential. 10 points

Questions and answers

All incoming questions regarding this specific challenge should be addressed to solutions@canada.ca.

You can also consult the Frequently asked questions about the Innovative Solutions Canada Program.

A glossary is also available.

Language selection

WxT Search form