IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/hcarem/v18y2015i1p35-57.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Accept/decline decision module for the liver simulated allocation model

Author

Listed:
  • Sang-Phil Kim
  • Diwakar Gupta
  • Ajay Israni
  • Bertram Kasiske

Abstract

Simulated allocation models (SAMs) are used to evaluate organ allocation policies. An important component of SAMs is a module that decides whether each potential recipient will accept an offered organ. The objective of this study was to develop and test accept-or-decline classifiers based on several machine-learning methods in an effort to improve the SAM for liver allocation. Feature selection and imbalance correction methods were tested and best approaches identified for application to organ transplant data. Then, we used 2011 liver match-run data to compare classifiers based on logistic regression, support vector machines, boosting, classification and regression trees, and Random Forests. Finally, because the accept-or-decline module will be embedded in a simulation model, we also developed an evaluation tool for comparing performance of predictors, which we call sample-path accuracy. The Random Forest method resulted in the smallest overall error rate, and boosting techniques had greater accuracy when both sensitivity and specificity were simultaneously considered important. Our comparisons show that no method dominates all others on all performance measures of interest. A logistic regression-based classifier is easy to implement and allows for pinpointing the contribution of each feature toward the probability of acceptance. Other methods we tested did not have a similar interpretation. The Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients decided to use the logistic regression-based accept-decline decision module in the next generation of liver SAM. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media New York (outside the USA) 2015

Suggested Citation

  • Sang-Phil Kim & Diwakar Gupta & Ajay Israni & Bertram Kasiske, 2015. "Accept/decline decision module for the liver simulated allocation model," Health Care Management Science, Springer, vol. 18(1), pages 35-57, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:kap:hcarem:v:18:y:2015:i:1:p:35-57
    DOI: 10.1007/s10729-014-9295-x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s10729-014-9295-x
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10729-014-9295-x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Oecd, 2012. "How Is the Global Talent Pool Changing?," Education Indicators in Focus 5, OECD Publishing.
    2. Xuanming Su & Stefanos A. Zenios, 2005. "Patient Choice in Kidney Allocation: A Sequential Stochastic Assignment Model," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 53(3), pages 443-455, June.
    3. Ian T. Jolliffe, 1982. "A Note on the Use of Principal Components in Regression," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 31(3), pages 300-303, November.
    4. Israel David & Uri Yechiali, 1985. "A Time-dependent Stopping Problem with Application to Live Organ Transplants," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 33(3), pages 491-504, June.
    5. Howard, David H., 2002. "Why do transplant surgeons turn down organs?: A model of the accept/reject decision," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(6), pages 957-969, November.
    6. Jae-Hyeon Ahn & John C. Hornberger, 1996. "Involving Patients in the Cadaveric Kidney Transplant Allocation Process: A Decision-Theoretic Perspective," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 42(5), pages 629-641, May.
    7. ., 2012. "Efficient Structure of Exchange," Chapters, in: Why is there Money?, chapter 9, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    8. Oguzhan Alagoz & Lisa M. Maillart & Andrew J. Schaefer & Mark S. Roberts, 2007. "Determining the Acceptance of Cadaveric Livers Using an Implicit Model of the Waiting List," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 55(1), pages 24-36, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Chaithanya Bandi & Nikolaos Trichakis & Phebe Vayanos, 2019. "Robust Multiclass Queuing Theory for Wait Time Estimation in Resource Allocation Systems," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(1), pages 152-187, January.
    2. Ozge Ceren Ersoy & Diwakar Gupta & Timothy Pruett, 2021. "A critical look at the U.S. deceased‐donor organ procurement and utilization system," Naval Research Logistics (NRL), John Wiley & Sons, vol. 68(1), pages 3-29, February.

    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. Kargar, Bahareh & Pishvaee, Mir Saman & Jahani, Hamed & Sheu, Jiuh-Biing, 2020. "Organ transportation and allocation problem under medical uncertainty: A real case study of liver transplantation," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 134(C).
    2. Sakine Batun & Andrew J. Schaefer & Atul Bhandari & Mark S. Roberts, 2018. "Optimal Liver Acceptance for Risk-Sensitive Patients," Service Science, INFORMS, vol. 10(3), pages 320-333, September.
    3. Oguzhan Alagoz & Lisa M. Maillart & Andrew J. Schaefer & Mark S. Roberts, 2007. "Choosing Among Living-Donor and Cadaveric Livers," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 53(11), pages 1702-1715, November.
    4. Dimitris Bertsimas & Vivek F. Farias & Nikolaos Trichakis, 2013. "Fairness, Efficiency, and Flexibility in Organ Allocation for Kidney Transplantation," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 61(1), pages 73-87, February.
    5. Sahar Ahmadvand & Mir Saman Pishvaee, 2018. "An efficient method for kidney allocation problem: a credibility-based fuzzy common weights data envelopment analysis approach," Health Care Management Science, Springer, vol. 21(4), pages 587-603, December.
    6. Burhaneddin Sandıkçı & Lisa M. Maillart & Andrew J. Schaefer & Oguzhan Alagoz & Mark S. Roberts, 2008. "Estimating the Patient's Price of Privacy in Liver Transplantation," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 56(6), pages 1393-1410, December.
    7. Murat Kurt & Mark S. Roberts & Andrew J. Schaefer & M. Utku Ünver, 2011. "Valuing Prearranged Paired Kidney Exchanges: A Stochastic Game Approach," Boston College Working Papers in Economics 785, Boston College Department of Economics, revised 14 Oct 2011.
    8. Oguzhan Alagoz & Lisa M. Maillart & Andrew J. Schaefer & Mark S. Roberts, 2007. "Determining the Acceptance of Cadaveric Livers Using an Implicit Model of the Waiting List," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 55(1), pages 24-36, February.
    9. Xuanming Su & Stefanos A. Zenios, 2006. "Recipient Choice Can Address the Efficiency-Equity Trade-off in Kidney Transplantation: A Mechanism Design Model," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(11), pages 1647-1660, November.
    10. Levy, Amnon, 2005. "A decision-rule for transplanting non-cadaveric organs," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 164(2), pages 548-554, July.
    11. Zahra Gharibi & Michael Hahsler, 2021. "A Simulation-Based Optimization Model to Study the Impact of Multiple-Region Listing and Information Sharing on Kidney Transplant Outcomes," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(3), pages 1-20, January.
    12. Barış Ata & Anton Skaro & Sridhar Tayur, 2017. "OrganJet: Overcoming Geographical Disparities in Access to Deceased Donor Kidneys in the United States," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(9), pages 2776-2794, September.
    13. Nan Kong & Andrew J. Schaefer & Brady Hunsaker & Mark S. Roberts, 2010. "Maximizing the Efficiency of the U.S. Liver Allocation System Through Region Design," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 56(12), pages 2111-2122, December.
    14. Oguzhan Alagoz & Lisa M. Maillart & Andrew J. Schaefer & Mark S. Roberts, 2004. "The Optimal Timing of Living-Donor Liver Transplantation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 50(10), pages 1420-1430, October.
    15. Mustafa Akan & Oguzhan Alagoz & Baris Ata & Fatih Safa Erenay & Adnan Said, 2012. "A Broader View of Designing the Liver Allocation System," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 60(4), pages 757-770, August.
    16. Sheldon Ross & David Wu, 2013. "A generalized coupon collecting model as a parsimonious optimal stochastic assignment model," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 208(1), pages 133-146, September.
    17. Yael Deutsch & Israel David, 2020. "Benchmark policies for utility-carrying queues with impatience," Queueing Systems: Theory and Applications, Springer, vol. 95(1), pages 97-120, June.
    18. Li, Mengling & Riyanto, Yohanes E. & Xu, Menghan, 2022. "Remedying adverse selection in donor-priority rule using freeze period: Theory and experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 194(C), pages 384-407.
    19. Chaithanya Bandi & Nikolaos Trichakis & Phebe Vayanos, 2019. "Robust Multiclass Queuing Theory for Wait Time Estimation in Resource Allocation Systems," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(1), pages 152-187, January.
    20. Xuanming Su & Stefanos A. Zenios, 2005. "Patient Choice in Kidney Allocation: A Sequential Stochastic Assignment Model," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 53(3), pages 443-455, June.

    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:kap:hcarem:v:18:y:2015:i:1:p:35-57. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.