ArticleJournal of transplantation2026
Predictive Models for Kidney Offer Acceptance: Challenges and Strategies.
Article in Journal of transplantation, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Predictive Models for Kidney Offer Acceptance: Challenges and Strategies.Journal of transplantation · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Predicting whether an organ offer will be accepted for transplantation remains challenging for several reasons, including large offer volumes, highly imbalanced observations (more declines than acceptances), and lack of information about the human decision-making process. Offer acceptance models are used for risk-adjusted program evaluations and policy development, but there is a lack of literature on baselines and best practices for predictive applications. We compared a suite of machine learning models, feature sets, and sampling procedures to identify performance impacts when training offer acceptance prediction models. Methods: We evaluated several kidney offer acceptance models from logistic regression to gradient boosted trees that were trained on donor and candidate characteristics. We then selected the best-performing model and augmented training data with additional features (e.g., distance from the closest airport to the transplant hospital) or additional sampling procedures (e.g., undersampling). Results: Compared to the baseline logistic regression model (average precision: 0.0645), the XGBoost model offered the best performance improvement over the baseline (average precision: 0.0907). Including transportation-related features in the model further improved model performance (average precision: 0.0940); however, we did not observe substantial model performance differences based on the sampling procedure used. Conclusions: Leveraging advanced machine learning models and incorporating nonclinical datapoints (like transportation distances) can improve transplant organ offer acceptance prediction models. However, we observed steep tradeoffs between precision and recall as captured in the low average precision scores despite deceptively high AUROCs (baseline AUROC 0.832). Our findings suggest that even the best-performing models would not provide clear, equitable benefits over existing allocation policies. More research is needed before these models are practical for clinical implementation.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.