Predicting Donor Selection and Multi-Organ Transplantation within Organ Procurement Organizations Using Machine Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Organ procurement organizations (OPOs) play a crucial role in the field of organ transplantation, serving as key intermediaries in the process of organ donation. However, despite their vital function, there exists a pressing issue of transparency within the organ allocation process. This opacity not only impedes the overall effectiveness of OPOs but also raises ethical and societal concerns regarding organ distribution. This study utilizes the recently published ORCHID dataset, containing 133,101 records of organ donor referrals, to understand organ procurement and donor selection strategies in OPOs using machine learning (ML). We developed seven ML classification models to predict donor selection and the likelihood of at least four organs being suitable for transplantation, in line with established definitions of multi-organ transplantation. The models demonstrated variable recall values for donor selection, ranging between 0.62 and 0.80, while achieving consistently high performance across other evaluation metrics, notably with AUC values exceeding 0.95. Particularly in the context of multi-organ transplant predictions, the models exhibited remarkable effectiveness, with recall values spanning from 0.88 to 0.98 and AUC metrics consistently above 0.97. Administrative milestones and particular organ transplants were identified as key determinants in the organ allocation process. This study's findings suggest significant opportunities to improve organ allocation strategies by focusing on the optimization of administrative practices, highlighting their substantial impact on transplantation success rates.
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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 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".