The Canadian Kidney Paired Donation Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Brief Background Establishment of a national kidney paired donation (KPD) program represents a unique achievement in Canada’s provincially organized health care system. Methods Key factors enabling program implementation included consultation with international experts, formation of a unique organization with a mandate to facilitate interprovincial collaboration, and the volunteer efforts of members of the Canadian transplant community to overcome a variety of logistical barriers. Results As of December 2013, the program had facilitated 240 transplantations including 10% with Calculated panel reactive antibody (cPRA) ≥97%. Unique features of the Canadian KPD program include participation of n = 55 nondirected donors, performance of only donor specific antibody negative transplants, the requirement for donor travel, and nonuse of bridge donors. Conclusion The national KPD program has helped maintain the volume of living kidney donor transplants in Canada over the past 5 years and serves as a model of inter-provincial collaboration to improve the delivery of health care to Canadians. This report highlights the experiences and accomplishments of a newly instituted kidney paired donor exchange program in Canada. The unique features and variables of the Canadian program suggest alternative ways to construct paired exchanges.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 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".