Author:
Schnellinger Erin M.,Cantu Edward,Harhay Michael O.,Schaubel Douglas E.,Kimmel Stephen E.,Stephens-Shields Alisa J.
Abstract
Abstract
Background
The lung allocation system in the U.S. prioritizes lung transplant candidates based on estimated pre- and post-transplant survival via the Lung Allocation Scores (LAS). However, these models do not account for selection bias, which results from individuals being removed from the waitlist due to receipt of transplant, as well as transplanted individuals necessarily having survived long enough to receive a transplant. Such selection biases lead to inaccurate predictions.
Methods
We used a weighted estimation strategy to account for selection bias in the pre- and post-transplant models used to calculate the LAS. We then created a modified LAS using these weights, and compared its performance to that of the existing LAS via time-dependent receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, calibration curves, and Bland-Altman plots.
Results
The modified LAS exhibited better discrimination and calibration than the existing LAS, and led to changes in patient prioritization.
Conclusions
Our approach to addressing selection bias is intuitive and can be applied to any organ allocation system that prioritizes patients based on estimated pre- and post-transplant survival. This work is especially relevant to current efforts to ensure more equitable distribution of organs.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Health Informatics,Epidemiology
Reference23 articles.
1. Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) Policies, effective 1 March 2020. Available: . Accessed 10 March 2020.
2. Veatch RM, Ross LF. Transplantation ethics. 2nd ed: Georgetown University Press. Part III: Allocating Organs; 2015.
3. Egan TM, et al. Development of the new lung allocation system in the United States. Am J Transplant. 2006;6(5 Pt 2):1212–27.
4. Rothman KJ, Greenland S, Poole C, Lash TL. “Survivor Bias” in modern epidemiology, 3rd edition, Ch. 12: causal diagrams, pp. 197–198. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2008.
5. Egleston BL, et al. Causal inference for non-mortality outcomes in the presence of death. Biostatistics. 2007;8(3):526–45.
Cited by
6 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献