Predicting Time to and Average Quality of Future Offers for Kidney Transplant Candidates Declining a Current Deceased Donor Kidney Offer: A Retrospective Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: of accepting or declining the offer. Although physicians have a general idea of expected wait time to kidney transplantation by blood group in their ODO, there are no tools that provide quantitative estimates based on the allocation score used and donor/candidate characteristics. This limits the shared decision-making process at the time of kidney offer as (1) the consequences of declining an offer in terms of wait-time prolongation cannot be provided and (2) the quality of the current offer cannot be compared with that of offers that could be made to the specific candidate in the future. This is especially relevant to older transplant candidates as many ODOs use some form of utility matching in their allocation score. Objective: We aimed to develop a novel method to provide personalized estimates of wait time to next offer and quality of future offers for kidney transplant candidates if they refused a current deceased donor offer from an ODO. Design: A retrospective cohort study. Setting: Administrative data from Transplant Quebec. Patients: All patients who were actively registered on the kidney transplant wait list at any point between March 29, 2012 and December 13, 2017. Measurements: The time to next offer was defined as the number of days between the time of the current offer and the next offer if the current one were declined. The quality of the offers was measured with the 10-variable Kidney Donor Risk Index (KDRI) equation. Methods: Candidate-specific kidney offer arrival was modeled with a marked Poisson process. To derive the lambda parameter for the marked Poisson process for each candidate, the arrival of donors was examined in the 2 years prior to the time of the current offer. The Transplant Quebec allocation score was calculated for each ABO-compatible offer with the characteristics that the candidate presented at the time of the current offer. Offers where the candidate's score was lower than the scores of actual recipients of the second kidneys transplanted were filtered out from the candidate-specific kidney offer arrival. The KDRIs of offers that remained were averaged to provide an estimate of the quality of future offers, to be compared with that of the current offer. Results: During the study period, there were 848 unique donors and 1696 transplant candidates actively registered. The models provide the following information: average time to next offer, time to which there is a 95% probability of receiving a next offer, average KDRI of future offers. The C-index of the model was 0.72. When compared with providing average group estimates of wait time and KDRI of future offers, the model reduced the root-mean-square error in the predicted time to next offer from 137 to 84 days and that of predicted KDRI of future offers from 0.64 to 0.55. The precision of the model's predictions was higher when observed times to next offer were 5 months or less. Limitations: The models assume that patients declining an offer remain wait-listed until the next one. The model only updates wait time every year after the time of an offer and not in a continuous fashion. Conclusion: By providing personalized quantitative estimates of time to and quality of future offers, our new approach can inform the shared decision-making process between transplant candidates and physicians when a kidney offer from a deceased donor is made by an ODO.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".