Predicting offer burden to optimize batch sizes in simultaneously expiring kidney offers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Timely and efficient allocation of deceased donor kidneys is a persistent challenge in transplantation. Traditional sequential offer systems often lead to extended delays and high nonuse rates, as many kidneys undergo multiple refusals before being accepted. Simultaneously expiring offers, where a kidney is offered to a batch of centers with synchronized response deadlines, offer a more efficient alternative. However, fixed batch sizes fail to account for variability in offer requirements, potentially introducing new inefficiencies or overwhelming transplant professionals with excessive notifications. Methods: We investigated the use of machine learning-based survival models to dynamically predict the number of offers a kidney will require before acceptance. Utilizing data on over 16,000 deceased donor kidneys from the national organ offer dataset, we engineered predictive features from both donor profiles and recipient pool characteristics. We trained and evaluated multiple survival models using time-dependent concordance indices along with other survival and regression performance metrics. Results: The Random Survival Forest model achieved the best performance, with a time-dependent C-index of 0.882, effectively estimating the required offer volume for kidney placement. Feature importance analysis revealed that waitlist characteristics, such as mean Estimated Post-Transplant Survival (EPTS), mean Calculated Panel Reactive Antibody (CPRA), time on dialysis, and waitlist duration, were among the most influential predictors. When integrated into a dynamic simultaneous offer system, these predictions have the potential to reduce average placement delays from 17.37 h to 1.59 h while maintaining a manageable level of extraneous offers. Discussion: Our results demonstrate that survival-based predictive modeling can meaningfully improve the efficiency of simultaneously expiring offers in kidney allocation. By personalizing batch sizes based on expected offer burden, such models can reduce delays without overwhelming transplant professionals. These findings underscore the value of integrating real-time, data-driven tools into organ allocation systems to improve operational efficiency and facilitate practical implementation.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".