Disparities in Socioeconomic Status and Access to Lung Transplantation in Cystic Fibrosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Context: Patients with Medicaid experience persistent health disparities for a wide range of diseases and treatments in the United States compared to those without Medicaid, but disparities with respect to access to lung transplantation for cystic fibrosis (CF) patients are largely unknown. Objective: To determine whether access to lung transplantation for CF patients with end-stage lung disease differs according to Medicaid status. Design, Setting and Participants: Observational study of 2,167 adult CF patients with end-stage lung disease who underwent initial lung transplant evaluation between 2001 to 2009 identified through the United States CF Foundation Patient Registry including 1009 (47%) receiving Medicaid and 1158 (53%) without Medicaid. The main outcome measure was acceptance for lung transplant following evaluation. Results: 1,349 (62%) of 2,167 adult CF patients who underwent lung transplant evaluation were accepted. In a multivariate logistic model accounting for demographic characteristics, disease severity, potential contraindications to lung transplant, and pre-/post-use of the lung allocation score, Medicaid recipients were 54% [95% confidence interval (CI):25%-88%] more likely to be not accepted for lung transplant compared to patients without Medicaid. This association was independent of other SES indicators including race, education, zip code median household income, and driving time from residence to closest transplant center (OR=1.37, 95% CI:1.10-1.72). Patients not completing high school (OR=2.37, 95% CI:1.49-3.79) and those residing in the lowest (vs. highest) zip code median household income category (OR=1.39, 95% CI:1.01-1.93) were also more likely not to be accepted for lung transplant. Conclusions: In this nationally representative study of adult CF patients, multiple indicators of a lower socioeconomic position, including receipt of Medicaid, were associated with higher likelihoods of not being accepted for lung transplant. A more complete understanding of what specific aspects of socioeconomic position influence acceptance for lung transplantation is needed in order to ensure more equitable allocation of this treatment.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".