Access to kidney transplantation: the limitations of our current understanding
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since kidney transplantation (KTX) is the preferred means of treating kidney failure, ensuring that all patients who may benefit from KTX have equal access to this scarce resource is an important objective. Studies focusing on this issue will become increasingly important as the gap between the demand and supply of organs continues to increase, and changes to the United Network of Organ Sharing organ allocation policy are actively debated. However, it is clear that current methods used to study access to KTX have serious limitations. This review highlights the shortcomings of the methods currently used to assess access to KTX, and the limitations of registry data and national wait-list data as information sources to study patient access to KTX. The review also provides suggestions for research and analytical approaches that might be utilized to improve our future understanding of patient access to KTX. The information provided will aid the reader to critically assess issues related to patient access to KTX.
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 | 0.084 | 0.169 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".