The Health Value of Kidney Exchange and Altruistic Donation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Living donor kidney transplantation (LTx) is the preferred treatment for patients with end-stage renal disease. Kidney exchange programs (KEPs) promote LTx by facilitating exchange of donors among patients who are not compatible with their donors. We analyze and maximize the efficacy and effectiveness of KEPS from a health value perspective and the health value of altruistic donation in KEPs. METHODS: We developed a Markov model for the health outcomes of patients, which was embedded in a discrete event simulation model to assess the effectiveness of allocation policies in KEPs. A new allocation policy to maximize health value was developed on the basis of integer programing techniques. The evidence-based transition probabilities in the Markov model were based on data from the Dutch KEP using a variety of econometric models. Scenarios analysis was presented to improve robustness. RESULTS: The efficacy of the Dutch KEP without altruistic donation is reflected by the increase in expected discounted quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) by 3.23 from 6.42 to 9.65. The present Dutch policy and the policy to maximize the number of transplants achieve 63% of the potential efficacy gain (2.11 discounted QALYs). The new policy achieves 69% of this gain (2.33 discounted QALYs). When systematically enrolling altruistic donors in the KEP, the new policy increased expected discounted QALYs by 4.05 to 10.27 and reduced inequities for patients with blood type O. CONCLUSIONS: The Dutch KEP can increase health value for patients by more than half. An allocation policy that maximizes health outcomes and maximally allows altruistic donation can yield significant further improvements.
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 | 0.007 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".