MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Advantage of Multiple Listing for Deceased Donor Kidney Transplantation Is Increasing Over Time.

2014· article· en· W2775018026 on OpenAlexaff
Caren Rose, John S. Gill

Bibliographic record

VenueTransplantation · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRenal Transplantation Outcomes and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineABO blood group systemTransplantationLogistic regressionListing (finance)Multivariate analysisKidney transplantationProportional hazards modelEmergency medicineInternal medicineDemographyFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the United States, patients may be wait-listed for deceased donor kidney transplantation in multiple transplant centers. Using data SRTR from 1995-2010 we determined factors associated with multiple wait-listing in a multivariate logistic regression model. The independent association of multiple wait-listing with deceased transplantation during different time periods (1995-9, 2000-4, 2005-10) was determined using Cox multivariate regression after adjustment for differences in patient age, sex, race, cause of ESRD, BMI, PRA, ABO blood group, education, employment status, health insurance provider, and OPO waiting time. Results: Among 310,349 actively wait-list candidates, 8.0% were multiply wait-listed. Factors associated with multiple wait listing included recipient age 18-39 years (compared to those >40 years); males; non-Black race; non-diabetic, ABO blood group O, B (compared to blood group A), PRA > 30%; working full time; higher education > high-school; non-private insurance; primary listing in an OPO with median waiting time > 2 years. The table show that likelihood of transplantation in multiply wait-listed candidates compared to candidates only listed at a single increased over time. This translated into clinically significant differences in access to transplantation among multiply listed patients. For example the proportion of ABO blood group B patients (39% versus 29%); PRA >30% (48% versus 34%); and, patients listed in OPOs with waiting time > 2 years (41% versus 22%) that were transplanted after five years of wait-listing was significantly higher in multiply listed patients (p<0.001 for all comparisons). Conclusions: Patients with biological barrier to transplantation (i.e. blood type B and high PRA) as well as patients with primary listing in centers with waiting times > 2 years have a higher odds of multiple waitlisting. The policy of multiple wait-listing is associated with an increased likelihood of transplantation and this advantage is increasing over time. Given the organ shortage, ensuring that all difficult to transplant patients have an equal opportunity to take advantage of this policy is essential.Table: No Caption available.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.274 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransplantationSame topicRenal Transplantation Outcomes and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207