Development of a survey to identify barriers to living donation in kidney transplant candidates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Kidney transplantation from living donors, compared with deceased donors, has improved health care outcomes for patients with end-stage renal disease; however, less than 40% of transplants come from living donors. Numerous barriers may impede the identification of, and transplantation from, living donors. OBJECTIVE: To develop and validate a survey to identify barriers that transplant candidates may encounter when seeking a living donor for kidney transplantation. METHODS: The survey was developed in 3 phases: item identification by using persons with a stake in the process to identify key components; survey refinement, including assessment of content and face validity; and assessment of test-retest reliability by using the kappa coefficient and percent agreement for each of the scaled response items. RESULTS: The final survey contained 10 items with a Likert scale response and 5 open-ended questions. Expert nephrologists in the field confirmed face validity and content validity of the survey. The overall kappa coefficient for the scale was 0.76, reflecting excellent agreement, with an overall percent agreement of 88.7%. CONCLUSION: We developed a survey to identify barriers that kidney transplant candidates may experience when seeking a living donor, which demonstrated content and face validity as well as reproducibility. This survey can by used by endstage renal disease programs to identify barriers in candidates seeking a transplant. The results of the survey can be used to develop interventions to overcome such barriers with an ultimate goal of increasing rates of living kidney donation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".