Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33891805›Full record

ArticleAmerican journal of transplantation : official journal of the American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons2021

Liver simulated allocation model does not effectively predict organ offer decisions for pediatric liver transplant candidates.

Nicholas L Wood, Douglas B Mogul, Emily R Perito, Douglas VanDerwerken, George V Mazariegos, Evelyn K Hsu, Dorry L Segev, Sommer E Gentry

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in American journal of transplantation : official journal of the American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Nicholas L WoodDepartment of Mathematics, United States Naval Academy, Annapolis, Maryland, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-0768-3759
Douglas B MogulDepartment of Pediatrics, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-6486-3302
Emily R PeritoDepartment of Pediatrics, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-2911-9684
Douglas VanDerwerkenDepartment of Mathematics, United States Naval Academy, Annapolis, Maryland, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-1761-4960
George V MazariegosHillman Center for Pediatric Transplantation, UPMC Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-2624-8632
Evelyn K HsuDepartment of Pediatrics, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Washington, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-4359-7102
Dorry L SegevDepartment of Surgery, Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-1924-4801
Sommer E GentryDepartment of Mathematics, United States Naval Academy, Annapolis, Maryland, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-4530-8917

Funding

Reducing geographic disparities in kidney and liver allocationR01DK111233 · NIDDK · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI WARREN, DANIEL S · 2016 to 2019
$2.5M
Patient Oriented Research in Kidney Disease and Transplant SurgeryK24DK101828 · NIDDK · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI SEGEV, DORRY L. · 2014 to 2018
$922k
NIDDK NIH HHS K24 DK101828NIDDK NIH HHS K24DK101828NIDDK NIH HHS R01 DK111233NIDDK NIH HHS R01DK111233
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The SRTR maintains the liver-simulated allocation model (LSAM), a tool for estimating the impact of changes to liver allocation policy. Integral to LSAM is a model that predicts the decision to accept or decline a liver for transplant. LSAM implicitly assumes these decisions are made identically for adult and pediatric liver transplant (LT) candidates, which has not been previously validated. We applied LSAM's decision-making models to SRTR offer data from 2013 to 2016 to determine its efficacy for adult (≥18) and pediatric (<18) LT candidates, and pediatric subpopulations-teenagers (≥12 to <18), children (≥2 to <12), and infants (<2)-using the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC). For nonstatus 1A candidates, all pediatric subgroups had higher rates of offer acceptance than adults. For non-1A candidates, LSAM's model performed substantially worse for pediatric candidates than adults (AUC 0.815 vs. 0.922); model performance decreased with age (AUC 0.898, 0.806, 0.783 for teenagers, children, and infants, respectively). For status 1A candidates, LSAM also performed worse for pediatric than adult candidates (AUC 0.711 vs. 0.779), especially for infants (AUC 0.618). To ensure pediatric candidates are not unpredictably or negatively impacted by allocation policy changes, we must explicitly account for pediatric-specific decision making in LSAM.

Indexed as

Liver TransplantationAdolescentAdultChildHumansInfantLiverWaiting Listsethics and public policyhealth services and outcomes researchliver transplantation/hepatologymathematical modelorgan acceptanceorgan allocationorgan procurement and allocationpediatricsScientific Registry for Transplant Recipients (SRTR)simulation

Identifiers

PMID33891805
PMCPMC11561901

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.