The influence of socio-demographic factors, treatment perceptions and attitudes to living donation on willingness to consider living kidney donor among kidney transplant candidates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Living donor, compared with cadaveric donor kidney transplantation, is associated with prolonged graft survival and increased life expectancy for patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD). However, access to living donor transplantation remains variable. Our objective was to further our understanding of the factors associated with the willingness to consider living donor kidney transplant (LDKTx). METHODS: All patients from two tertiary care hospitals being assessed for a LDKTx (n = 81), and a random sample of patients on the waiting list for a cadaveric kidney transplant (CDKTx, n = 133) were invited to participate. A mail survey assessed participants' socio-demographic characteristics, and perceptions of dialysis, CDKTx and LDKTx. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess the influence of these factors on willingness to consider LDKTx. RESULTS: Adjusting for patient age, employment status and number of close relatives, willingness to consider an LDKTx was independently associated with a lower perceived risk of peri-operative complications to the donor (adjusted OR 3.59, P = 0.02), the perception that the recipient would live longer following living donor transplantation (adjusted OR 4.34, P = 0.003) and greater perceived appropriateness of asking a family member to donate a kidney (adjusted OR 5.06, P = 0.007). CONCLUSION: Among the ESRD patients studied, adjusting for key factors that may be associated with access to LDKTx, perceptions about risks to the donor and benefits to the recipient were independently associated with a willingness to consider LDKTx as a treatment option. Provision of standardized comprehensible information about all treatment options to patients with ESRD may improve acceptance rates for living donor transplantation.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".