Willingness of Directed Living Donors and Their Recipients to Participate in Kidney Paired Donation Programs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Participation of compatible living donors and recipients in kidney paired donation (KPD) could double the number of KPD transplants. We determined the willingness of previous directed donors and their recipients to participate in KPD and identified the association of various factors, including financial incentives, with willingness to participate. METHODS: Survey of previous directed living kidney donors and their recipients in a single Canadian center between 2001 and 2009. RESULTS: Among 207 of 222 eligible living donors contacted, 86 (42%) completed the anonymous survey: 93% (78/86) of donors indicated willingness to participate in KPD if this option had been provided at the time of donation. An increased willingness to participate was reported among the majority of respondents if reimbursements for lost wages and travel expenses were provided; however, cash payments between $5 000 and $50 000 had little impact on willingness. Willingness was also increased with an advantage to the recipient (younger donor or better human leukocyte antigen match), whereas delays beyond 3 months and donor travel were associated with reduced willingness to participate. Among 38 recipients approached during routine clinical follow-up visits over a 3-month period, 100% completed the survey, and 36 of 38 (92%) reported they would have been willing to participate in KPD. CONCLUSIONS: Over 90% of directed donors and recipients were willing to participate in KPD. Reimbursement for the costs of participation and improved efficiency of KPD (i.e., eliminating travel and reducing transplant times), but not cash payments, may increase participation of compatible donors and recipients in KPD.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".