Alleviating the Patient's Price of Privacy Through a Partially Observable Waiting List

References

• Ahn JH, Hornberger JC. Involving patients in the cadaveric kidney transplant allocation process: A decision-theoretic perspective. Management Sci. (1996) 42(5):629–641Link, Google Scholar
• Alagoz O, Maillart LM, Schaefer AJ, Roberts MS. Choosing among living-donor and cadaveric livers. Management Sci. (2007a) 53(11):1702–1715Link, Google Scholar
• Alagoz O, Maillart LM, Schaefer AJ, Roberts MS. Determining the acceptance of cadaveric livers using an implicit model of the waiting list. Oper. Res. (2007b) 55(1):24–36Link, Google Scholar
• Alagoz O, Bryce CL, Schaefer AJ, Chang CH, Angus DC, Roberts MS. Incorporating biological natural history in simulation models: Empiric estimates of the progression of end-stage liver disease. Medical Decision Making (2005) 25(6):620–632Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ayer T, Alagoz O, Stout NK. A POMDP approach to personalize mammography screening decisions. Oper. Res. (2012) 60(5):1019–1034Link, Google Scholar
• Cassandra AR. A survey of POMDP applications. (1997) American Association of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI) Fall SymposiumTechnical report, AAAI, Palo Alto, CAGoogle Scholar
• Cassandra AR. Exact and approximate algorithms for partially observable Markov decision processes. (1998) . Ph.D. thesis, Brown University, Providence, RIGoogle Scholar
• David I, Yechiali U. One-attribute sequential assignment match processes in discrete time. Oper. Res. (1995) 43(5):879–884Link, Google Scholar
• Dew MA, Switzer GE, Goycoolea JM, Allen A, DiMartini A, Kormos RL, Griffith BP. Does transplantation produce quality of life benefits?: A quantitative analysis of the literature. Transplantation (1997) 64(9):1261–1273Crossref, Google Scholar
• Harper AM, Taranto SE, Edwards EB, Daily OP, Joines JA, Barton RR, Kang K, Fishwick PA. Organ transplantation policies: An update on a successful simulation project: The UNOS liver allocation model. WSC '00: Proc. 32nd Conf. Winter Simulation (2000) (Society for Computer Simulation International, San Diego) 1955–1962Google Scholar
• Hauskrecht M, Kuipers B, Webber BL. Incremental methods for computing bounds in partially observable Markov decision processes. Proc. 14th Natl. Conf. Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-97) (1997) (AAAI Press/MIT Press, Danver, MA) 734–739Google Scholar
• Hauskrecht M, Fraser H. Planning treatment of ischemic heart disease with partially observable Markov decision processes. Artificial Intelligence in Medicine (2000) 18(3):221–244Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hu C, Lovejoy WS, Shafer SL. Comparison of some suboptimal control policies in medical drug therapy. Oper. Res. (1996) 44(5):696–709Link, Google Scholar
• Karlin S. Total Positivity (1968) Vol. I(Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA) Google Scholar
• Law AM. Simulation Modeling and Analysis (2007) 4th ed.(McGraw-Hill, New York) Google Scholar
• Lovejoy WS. Some monotonicity results for partially observed Markov decision processes. Oper. Res. (1987) 35(5):736–743Link, Google Scholar
• Lovejoy WS. Computationally feasible bounds for partially observed Markov decision processes. Oper. Res. (1991a) 39(1):162–175Link, Google Scholar
• Lovejoy WS. A survey of algorithmic methods for partially observed Markov decision processes. Ann. Oper. Res. (1991b) 28(1):47–66Crossref, Google Scholar
• Maillart LM, Ivy JS, Ransom S, Diehl K. Assessing dynamic breast cancer screening policies. Oper. Res. (2008) 56(6):1411–1427Link, Google Scholar
• Malinchoc M, Kamath PS, Gordon FD, Peine CJ, Rank J, TerBorg PCJ. A model to predict poor survival in patients undergoing transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunts. Hepatology (2000) 31(4):864–871Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ohnishi M, Morioka T, Ibaraki T. Optimal minimal-repair and replacement problem of discrete-time Markovian deterioration system under incomplete state information. Comput. Indust. Engrg. (1994) 27(1–4):409–412Crossref, Google Scholar
• Poupart P. Exploiting structure to efficiently solve large scale partially observable Markov decision processes. (2005) . Ph.D. thesis, University of Toronto, Toronto, ONGoogle Scholar
• Puterman ML. Markov Decision Processes: Discrete Stochastic Dynamic Programming (1994) (John Wiley & Sons, New York) Crossref, Google Scholar
• Roberts MS, Angus DC, Bryce CL, Valenta Z, Weissfeld L. Survival after liver transplantation in the United States: A disease-specific analysis of the UNOS database. Liver Transplantation (2004) 10(7):886–897Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sandıkçı B. Estimating the price of privacy in liver transplantation. (2008) . Ph.D. thesis, University of Pittsburgh, PittsburghGoogle Scholar
• Sandıkçı B, Maillart LM, Schaefer AJ, Alagoz O, Roberts MS. Estimating the patient's price of privacy in liver transplantation. Oper. Res. (2008) 56(6):1393–1410Link, Google Scholar
• Shaked M, Shantikumar JG. Stochastic Orders (2007) (Springer, New York) Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shechter SM, Bryce CL, Alagoz O, Kreke JE, Stahl JE, Schaefer AJ, Angus DC, Roberts MS. A clinically based discrete-event simulation of end-stage liver disease and the organ allocation process. Medical Decision Making (2005) 25(2):199–209Crossref, Google Scholar
• Smallwood RD, Sondik EJ. The optimal control of partially observable Markov processes over a finite horizon. Oper. Res. (1973) 21(5):1071–1088Link, Google Scholar
• Spaan MTJ, Vlassis N. Perseus: Randomized point-based value iteration for POMDPs. J. Artificial Intelligence Res. (2005) 24(2):195–220Crossref, Google Scholar
• Striebel CT. Sufficient statistics in the optimal control of stochastic systems. J. Math. Anal. Appl. (1965) 12(3):576–592Crossref, Google Scholar
• Su X, Zenios SA. Patient choice in kidney allocation: The role of the queueing discipline. Manufacturing Service Oper. Management (2004) 6(4):280–301Link, Google Scholar
• Su X, Zenios SA. Patient choice in kidney allocation: A sequential stochastic assignment model. Oper. Res. (2005) 53(3):443–455Link, Google Scholar
• Su X, Zenios SA. Recipient choice can address the efficiency-equity trade-off in kidney transplantation: A mechanism design model. Management Sci. (2006) 52(11):1647–1660Link, Google Scholar
• United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) Policy 3.6: Allocation of livers. (2010a) . Retrieved January 1, 2010, http://www.unos.orgGoogle Scholar
• United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) View data reports. (2010b) . Retrieved January 1, 2010, http://www.unos.org/dataGoogle Scholar
• U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Annual report of the U.S. Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network and the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients: Transplant data 1998–2007. (2008) . Retrieved January 1, 2010, http://srtr.transplant.hrsa.gov/annual_reports/2010/ar_archives.htmGoogle Scholar
• Yokota F, Thompson KM. Value of information literature: A review of applications in health risk management. Medical Decision Making (2004) 24(3):287–298Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zenios SA. Modeling the transplant waiting list: A queuing model with reneging. Queuing Systems (1999) 31(3–4):239–251Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zenios SA, Brandeau ML, Sainfort F, Pierskalla WP. Models for kidney allocation. Operations Research and Health Care: A Handbook of Methods and Applications (2004) (Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston) 537–554Google Scholar
• Zenios SA, Chertow GM, Wein LM. Dynamic allocation of kidneys to candidates on the transplant waiting list. Oper. Res. (2000) 48(4):549–569Link, Google Scholar
• Zenios SA, Wein LM, Chertow GM. Evidence-based organ allocation. Amer. J. Medicine (1999) 107(1):52–61Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zhang J, Denton BT, Balasubramanian H, Shah ND, Inman BA. Optimization of prostate biopsy referral decisions. Manuafacturing Service Oper. Management (2012) 14(4):529–547Link, Google Scholar
• Zhou R, Hansen EA. An improved grid-based approximation algorithm for POMDPs. Proc. 17th Internat. Joint Conf. Artificial Intelligence (IJAI-01) (2001) (Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco) 707–714Google Scholar