IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jstats/v7y2024i2p31-520d1410539.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Spatial Gaussian-Process Boosting Analysis of Socioeconomic Disparities in Wait-Listing of End-Stage Kidney Disease Patients across the United States

Author

Listed:
  • Sounak Chakraborty

    (Department of Statistics, University of Missouri, 209F Middlebush Hall, Columbia, MO 65211, USA)

  • Tanujit Dey

    (Center for Surgery & Public Health, Department of Surgery, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 1620 Tremont Street, Suite 2-016, Boston, MA 02120, USA)

  • Lingwei Xiang

    (Center for Surgery & Public Health, Department of Surgery, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 1620 Tremont Street, Suite 2-016, Boston, MA 02120, USA)

  • Joel T. Adler

    (Division of Transplant Surgery, Department of Surgery and Perioperative Care, Dell Medical School, The University of Texas at Austin, University Station, Mail Stop A3000, Austin, TX 78712, USA)

Abstract

In this study, we employed a novel approach of combining Gaussian processes (GPs) with boosting techniques to model the spatial variability inherent in End-Stage Kidney Disease (ESKD) data. Our use of the Gaussian processes boosting, or GPBoost, methodology underscores the efficacy of this hybrid method in capturing intricate spatial dynamics and enhancing predictive accuracy. Specifically, our analysis demonstrates a notable improvement in out-of-sample prediction accuracy regarding the percentage of the population remaining on the wait list within geographic regions. Furthermore, our investigation unveils race and gender-based factors that significantly influence patient wait-listing. By leveraging the GPBoost approach, we identify these pertinent factors, shedding light on the complex interplay between demographic variables and access to kidney transplantation services. Our findings underscore the imperative for a multifaceted strategy aimed at reducing spatial disparities in kidney transplant wait-listing. Key components of such an approach include mitigating gender disparities, bolstering access to healthcare services, fostering greater awareness of transplantation options, and dismantling structural barriers to care. By addressing these multifactorial challenges, we can strive towards a more equitable and inclusive landscape in kidney transplantation.

Suggested Citation

  • Sounak Chakraborty & Tanujit Dey & Lingwei Xiang & Joel T. Adler, 2024. "A Spatial Gaussian-Process Boosting Analysis of Socioeconomic Disparities in Wait-Listing of End-Stage Kidney Disease Patients across the United States," Stats, MDPI, vol. 7(2), pages 1-13, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jstats:v:7:y:2024:i:2:p:31-520:d:1410539
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2571-905X/7/2/31/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2571-905X/7/2/31/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Marc C. Kennedy & Anthony O'Hagan, 2001. "Bayesian calibration of computer models," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 63(3), pages 425-464.
    2. Tilmann Gneiting & Fadoua Balabdaoui & Adrian E. Raftery, 2007. "Probabilistic forecasts, calibration and sharpness," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 69(2), pages 243-268, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Vanslette, Kevin & Tohme, Tony & Youcef-Toumi, Kamal, 2020. "A general model validation and testing tool," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 195(C).
    2. Matthias Katzfuss & Joseph Guinness & Wenlong Gong & Daniel Zilber, 2020. "Vecchia Approximations of Gaussian-Process Predictions," Journal of Agricultural, Biological and Environmental Statistics, Springer;The International Biometric Society;American Statistical Association, vol. 25(3), pages 383-414, September.
    3. Youjung Kim & Galen Newman, 2019. "Climate Change Preparedness: Comparing Future Urban Growth and Flood Risk in Amsterdam and Houston," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-24, February.
    4. Jakub Bijak & Jason D. Hilton & Eric Silverman & Viet Dung Cao, 2013. "Reforging the Wedding Ring," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 29(27), pages 729-766.
    5. Maneesoonthorn, Worapree & Martin, Gael M. & Forbes, Catherine S. & Grose, Simone D., 2012. "Probabilistic forecasts of volatility and its risk premia," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 171(2), pages 217-236.
    6. Warne, Anders, 2023. "DSGE model forecasting: rational expectations vs. adaptive learning," Working Paper Series 2768, European Central Bank.
    7. Hao Wu & Michael Browne, 2015. "Random Model Discrepancy: Interpretations and Technicalities (A Rejoinder)," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 80(3), pages 619-624, September.
    8. Lahiri, Kajal & Yang, Liu, 2013. "Forecasting Binary Outcomes," Handbook of Economic Forecasting, in: G. Elliott & C. Granger & A. Timmermann (ed.), Handbook of Economic Forecasting, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 0, pages 1025-1106, Elsevier.
    9. Liu, Hui & Duan, Zhu & Chen, Chao, 2020. "Wind speed big data forecasting using time-variant multi-resolution ensemble model with clustering auto-encoder," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 280(C).
    10. Jenny Brynjarsdottir & Jonathan Hobbs & Amy Braverman & Lukas Mandrake, 2018. "Optimal Estimation Versus MCMC for $$\mathrm{{CO}}_{2}$$ CO 2 Retrievals," Journal of Agricultural, Biological and Environmental Statistics, Springer;The International Biometric Society;American Statistical Association, vol. 23(2), pages 297-316, June.
    11. Villez, Kris & Del Giudice, Dario & Neumann, Marc B. & Rieckermann, Jörg, 2020. "Accounting for erroneous model structures in biokinetic process models," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 203(C).
    12. Xiaoyu Xiong & Benjamin D. Youngman & Theodoros Economou, 2021. "Data fusion with Gaussian processes for estimation of environmental hazard events," Environmetrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 32(3), May.
    13. Michael K. Adjemian & Valentina G. Bruno & Michel A. Robe, 2020. "Incorporating Uncertainty into USDA Commodity Price Forecasts," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 102(2), pages 696-712, March.
    14. Petropoulos, G. & Wooster, M.J. & Carlson, T.N. & Kennedy, M.C. & Scholze, M., 2009. "A global Bayesian sensitivity analysis of the 1d SimSphere soil–vegetation–atmospheric transfer (SVAT) model using Gaussian model emulation," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 220(19), pages 2427-2440.
    15. David Breitenmoser & Francesco Cerutti & Gernot Butterweck & Malgorzata Magdalena Kasprzak & Sabine Mayer, 2023. "Emulator-based Bayesian inference on non-proportional scintillation models by compton-edge probing," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-12, December.
    16. Warne, Anders & Coenen, Günter & Christoffel, Kai, 2010. "Forecasting with DSGE models," Working Paper Series 1185, European Central Bank.
    17. Drignei, Dorin, 2011. "A general statistical model for computer experiments with time series output," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 96(4), pages 460-467.
    18. Nowotarski, Jakub & Weron, Rafał, 2018. "Recent advances in electricity price forecasting: A review of probabilistic forecasting," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 81(P1), pages 1548-1568.
    19. Tilmann Gneiting & Larissa Stanberry & Eric Grimit & Leonhard Held & Nicholas Johnson, 2008. "Rejoinder on: Assessing probabilistic forecasts of multivariate quantities, with an application to ensemble predictions of surface winds," TEST: An Official Journal of the Spanish Society of Statistics and Operations Research, Springer;Sociedad de Estadística e Investigación Operativa, vol. 17(2), pages 256-264, August.
    20. Yuan, Jun & Nian, Victor & Su, Bin & Meng, Qun, 2017. "A simultaneous calibration and parameter ranking method for building energy models," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 206(C), pages 657-666.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jstats:v:7:y:2024:i:2:p:31-520:d:1410539. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.