Enhancing kidney transplantation through multi-agent kidney exchange programs: A comprehensive review and optimization models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents a comprehensive review of the last two decades of research on Kidney Exchange Programs (KEPs), systematically categorizing and classifying key contributions to provide readers with a structured understanding of advancements in the field. The review highlights the evolution of KEP methodologies and lays the foundation for our contribution. We propose three mathematical models aimed at improving both the quantity and quality of kidney transplants. Model 1 maximizes the number of transplants by focusing on compatibility based on blood type and PRA, without additional constraints. Model 2 introduces a minimum Human Leukocyte Antigen (HLA) compatibility threshold to enhance transplant quality, though this leads to fewer matches. Model 3 extends the problem to a Multi-Agent Kidney Exchange Program (MKEP), pooling incompatible donor-recipient pairs across multiple agents, resulting in a higher number of successful transplants while ensuring fairness across agents. Sensitivity analyses demonstrate trade-offs between transplant quantity and quality, with Model 3 striking the optimal balance by leveraging multi-agent collaboration to improve both the number and quality of transplants. These findings underscore the potential benefits of more integrated kidney exchange systems.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".