Equity or Equality? Which Approach Brings More Satisfaction in a Kidney-Exchange Chain?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In United States (U.S.), government-funded organizations, such as NLDAC, reimburse travel and subsistence expenses incurred during living-organ donation process. However, in Iran, there is a non-governmental organization called Iranian Kidney Foundation (IKF) that funds the direct and indirect costs of donors through charitable donations and contributions from participants in the exchange program. In this article, for countries outside the U.S. that currently use an equality approach, we propose a potential new compensation-apportionment approach (equitable approach) for kidney-exchange chains and compare it with the currently available system (equality approach) in terms of the apportionment of compensation in a kidney-exchange chain to cover the expenses incurred by the initiating living donor of the chain in the act of donation. To this end, we propose a mechanism to apportion compensation among all participating pairs based on the equity approach by utilizing a prediction model to calculate the probability of graft survival in each transplant operation. These probabilities are then used to define the utility of any transplantation, considering the quality of each pair's donated and received kidney in the chain. Afterward, the corresponding cost is apportioned by a mechanism based on the normalized differences between the utility of donated and received kidneys for each incompatible pair of the chain. In summary, we demonstrate that by utilizing the equitable approach, there is more fairness and equity in the allocation of resources in organ-procurement systems, which results in more satisfaction among incompatible pairs. Additional future prospective studies are needed to assess this proposed equitable approach for kidney-exchange chains in countries outside the U.S., such as Iran, that currently use an equality approach.
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 | 0.012 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".