Kidney transplant candidates’ perspectives on the implementation of a Canadian Willingness to Cross program: A strategy to increase access to kidney transplantation for highly sensitized patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Kidney transplantation is the optimal treatment for end-stage renal disease. However, highly sensitized patients (HSPs) have reduced access to transplantation, leading to increased morbidity and mortality on the waiting list. The Canadian Willingness to Cross (WTC) program proposes allowing transplantation across preformed donor specific antibodies (DSA) determined to be at a low risk of rejection under the adaptive design framework. This study collected patients' perspectives on the development of this program. METHODS: Forty-one individual interviews were conducted with kidney transplant candidates from three Canadian transplant centers in 2022. The interviews were digitally recorded and transcribed for subsequent analyses. RESULTS: Despite limited familiarity with the adaptive design, participants demonstrated trust in the researchers. They perceived the WTC program as a pathway for HSPs to access transplantation while mitigating transplant-related risks. HSPs saw the WTC program as a source of hope and an opportunity to leave dialysis, despite acknowledging inherent uncertainties. Some non-HSPs expressed concerns about fairness, anticipating increased waiting times and potential compromise in kidney graft longevity due to higher rejection risks. Participants recommended essential strategies for implementing the WTC program, including organizing informational meetings and highlighting the necessity for psychosocial support. CONCLUSION: The WTC program emerges as a promising strategy to enhance HSPs' access to kidney transplantation. While HSPs perceived this program as a source of hope, non-HSPs voiced concerns about distributive justice issues. These results will help develop a WTC program that is ethically sound for transplant candidates.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".