An Achievable-Region-Based Approach for Kidney Allocation Policy Design with Endogenous Patient Choice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Problem definition: Deceased-donor kidney transplant candidates in the United States are ranked according to characteristics of both the donor and the recipient. We seek the ranking policy that optimizes the efficiency–equity tradeoff among all such policies, taking into account patients’ strategic choices. Academic/practical relevance: Our approach considers a broad class of ranking policies, which provides approximations to the previously and currently used policies in practice. It also subsumes other policies proposed in the literature previously. As such, it facilitates a unified way of characterizing good policies. Methodology: We use a fluid model to approximate the transplant waitlist. Modeling patients as rational decision makers, we compute the resulting equilibria under a broad class of ranking policies, namely the achievable region. We then develop an algorithm that optimizes the system performance over the achievable region. Results: We show analytically that it suffices to restrict attention to priority scores that are affine in the patient’s waiting time. We also show through a numerical study that the total quality-adjusted life-years can be increased substantially by allowing patient rankings to depend on the kidney quality. Last, we observe that there is almost no improvement if only the healthier patients are prioritized for certain kidney types. Managerial implications: Our results verify that ranking patients differently for kidneys of different quality can reduce the survival mismatch and the kidney wastage significantly. Consequently, the policy change in 2014, that implemented prioritizing the healthiest patients when allocating the highest 20% quality organs, is a step in the right direction. For further improvement, one may consider revising the new policy by also prioritizing the least healthy patients on the waitlist for the lowest-quality organs.
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 | 0.008 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".