Foundations and Principles of the Canadian Living Donor Paired Exchange Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Kidney paired donation (KPD) remains an important strategy to facilitate transplantation in patients who have a healthy and willing donor, but are unable to proceed with directed donation due to either ABO incompatibility or a positive cross-match against their intended donor. SOURCES OF INFORMATION: Personal knowledge, The Canadian Blood Services Database for Living Donor Exchange, published reports and personal communications. FINDINGS: The national Living Donor Paired Exchange Programme (LDPE) in Canada was established in 2009. 235 transplants were completed of which 190 were registered recipients and 45 were from the deceased donor (DD) wait list. At 1 year, patient survival was 100%, graft survival 98%, with a biopsy proven acute rejection rate of 8%. The mean serum creatinine (Cr) at the end of one year was 109 mmol/l. Donor survival is 100%. Key to success are national standards for antibody testing and cross-matching, and for evaluating donors and recipients, as well infrastructure (software and personnel) to run the program. The structure of the Canadian program is compared with that of other programs in the United Kingdom, Australia, the Netherlands, and the United States. LIMITATIONS: This review does not include information on travel distances and difficulties, or patient satisfaction. IMPLICATIONS: National collaboration and acceptance of common standards is possible and leads to substantial benefits, especially for those patients who are hardest to match. What was known before: Kidney paired donation is considered ethically acceptable. National and regional programs have been created in a number of countries. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: Key to the success of the Canadian national program are acceptance of standardized procedures and national and provincial support and oversight.
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 | 0.016 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".