Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Understanding organ transplantation in the USA using geographical social networks

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Social Network Analysis and Mining Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

As of December 2011, 110,629 Americans are waiting for an organ transplant and yet only 28,664 people received organ transplants in 2010. This fact alone demonstrates the USA is facing an organ shortage crisis. Added to this, there is strong evidence that the organs made available are not being used efficiently, with 20 % of them going unused (for kidneys). It is tempting to investigate how new allocation policies could be implemented, but it would be more prudent to first understand the structure of the organ donation system in the USA. In spite of availability of data on transplants, to our knowledge no proper analysis has been done using the available data. This paper looks at organ transplantation data and what its structure may reveal about the allocation process currently in place. In order to structure the data, we used techniques from network sciences to build a network of locations (henceforth called a geographical social network, GSN) representing all transplants in the USA since 1987—locations represent states or zipcodes in the USA. This social structure is then analyzed using techniques from network sciences to bring clarity to the organ donation process. One of the main items in organ donation policies is the issue of locality which argues that allocation mechanisms should try to prioritize patients who are near the location where the organ became available. This is an important issue because the longer the organ takes to be transplanted the worse its quality. We show that network science techniques may shed some light on this process and demonstrate inconsistencies across different organs.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/09/19/us/discarded-organs-and-opportunities.html.

  2. http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_chart_001.htm.

  3. http://ti.me/iTIwfR.

  4. http://1.usa.gov/lEQScz.

  5. http://1.usa.gov/k4pN4X.

References

  • Alexander GC, Sehgal AR (1998) Barriers to cadaveric renal transplantation among blacks, women and the poor, JAMA 280(13):1148–1152

    Google Scholar 

  • Alonso W (1964) Location and Land Use, Cambridge: Harvard University Press

  • Barabási A-L (2005) Network theory–the emergence of the creative enterprise. Sci Agric 308(5722):639–641

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barabási A-L, Albert R (1999) Emergence of scaling in random networks. Sci Agric 286(5439):509

    Google Scholar 

  • Blondel VD, Guillaume J-L, Lambiotte R, Lefebvre E (2008) Fast unfolding of communities in large networks. J Stat Mech Theory Exp 10:P10008. http://stacks.iop.org/1742-5468/2008/i=10/a=P10008

  • Bollinger R, Cho W-H (2004) Organ allocation for transplantation in the USA and Korea: the changing roles of equity and utility. Yonsei Med J 45(6):1035

    Google Scholar 

  • Bross J, Richly K, Kohnen M, Meinel C (2012) Identifying the top-dogs of the blogosphere. Soc Netw Anal and Min 2:53–67

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Callender CO (1987) Organ donation in the black population: where do we go from here?, New Eng J Med 19(suppl 2):36–40

    Google Scholar 

  • Christakis NA, Fowler JH (2007) The spread of obesity in a large social network over 32 years. N Engl J Med 357(4):370–379

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christakis NA, Fowler JH (2008) The collective dynamics of smoking in a large social network. N Engl J Med 358(21):2249–2258

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cincotta RP, Wisnewski J, Engelman R (2000) Human population in the biodiversity hotspots. Nature 404(6781):990–992. doi:10.1038/35010105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collingsworth B, Menezes R (2009) Identification of social tension in organizational networks. In: Complex Networks, vol 207, Studies in Computational Intelligence, Springer, Berlin, pp 209–223

  • Dawber TR (1980) The Framingham Study: the epidemiology of atherosclerotic dis- ease, Harvard University Press, Cambridge

  • Divakarmurthy P, Menezes R (2012) The effect of citations to collaboration networks, In: Complex Networks, vol 424. Studies in Computational Intelligence, Springer, Berlin, pp 177–185

  • Fowler JH, Christakis NA (2008) Dynamic spread of happiness in a large social network: longitudinal analysis over 20 years in the Framingham Heart Study. BMJ 337

  • Furtado V, Melo A, Coelho ALV, Menezes R, Perrone R (2009) A bio-inspired crime simulation model. Decis Support Syst 48(1):282–292

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gardy JL, Johnston JC, Sui SJH, Cook VJ, Shah L, Brodkin E, Rempel S, Moore R, Zhao Y, Holt R, Varhol R, Birol I, Lem M, Sharma MK, Elwood K, Jones SJ, Brinkman FS, Brunham RC, Tang P (2011) Whole-genome sequencing and social-network analysis of a tuberculosis outbreak. N Engl J Med 364(8):730–739

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibbons RD, Duan N, Meltzer D, Pope A, Penhoet ED, Dubler NN, Francis C, Gill B, Guinan E, Henderson M, Ildstad ST, King PA, Martinez-Maldonado M, Mclain GE, Murray J, Nelkin D, Spellman MW, Pitluck S (2003) Waiting for organ transplantation: results of an analysis by an institute of medicine committee. Biostatistics 4(2):207–222

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Health Resources and Services Adminstration (HRSA) (2012) Organ procurement and transplantation network policies, http://bit.ly/kAn85K. Accessed 1 Dec 2012

  • Jin Y, Lin C-Y, Matsuo Y, Ishizuka M (2012) Mining dynamic social networks from public news articles for company value prediction. Soc Netw Anal Min 2:217–228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kamath PS, Wiesner RH, Malinchoc M, Kremers W, Therneau TM, Kosberg CL, D’Amico G, Dickson ER, Kim WR (2001) A model to predict survival in patients with end-stage liver disease. Hep Intl 33(2):464–470

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kasiske BL, Neylan JF, Riggio RR, Danovitch GM, Kahana L, Alexander SR, White MG (1991) The effect of race on access and outcome in transplantation. N Engl J Med 324(5):302–307

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keim D (2002) Information visualization and visual data mining. Visualization and Computer Graphics. IEEE Transactions on 8(1):1–8

    Google Scholar 

  • Klassen A, Klassen D, Aronoff R, Hall A, Braslow J (1999) Organizational characteristics of solid-organ donor hospitals and nondonor hospitals. J Transplant Coord 9(2):87–94

    Google Scholar 

  • Langone AJ, Helderman JH (2003) Disparity between solid-organ supply and demand. N Engl J Med 349(7):704–706

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merrill JP, Murray JE, Harrison JH, Guild WR (1956) Successful homotransplantation of the human kidney between identical twins.J Am Med Assoc 160(4):277–282

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Myers N, Mittermeier RA, Mittermeier CG, da Fonseca GAB, Kent J (2000) Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nat Biotechnol 403:853–858

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newman MEJ (2003) The structure and function of complex networks. SIAM review 45(2):167–256

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Newman MEJ, Girvan M (2004) Finding and evaluating community structure in networks. Phys Rev E 69(2):26113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Openshaw S (1984) The modifiable areal unit problem. Geo Books, Norwich

  • Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (2012) United network for organ sharing (UNOS). http://www.unos.org.Accessed 1 Dec 2012

  • Palla G, Derenyi I, Farkas I, Vicsek T (2005) Uncovering the overlapping community structure of complex networks in nature and society. Nat Biotechnol 435(7043):814–818

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pearson M, Michell L (2000) Smoke rings: social network analysis of friendship groups, smoking and drug-taking. Drugs: Education. Prevention Policy 7(17):21–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pritsker AAB, Martin DL, Reust JS, Wagner MA, Daily OP, Harper AM, Edwards EB, Bennett LE, Wilson JR, Kuhl ME, Roberts JP, Allen MD, Burdick JF (1995) Organ transplantation policy evaluation. In: Proceedings of the 27th conference on Winter simulation, IEEE Computer Society, Arlington, pp 1314–1323

  • Quattrociocchi W, Amblard F, Galeota E (2012) Selection in scientific networks. Soci Netw Anal Min 2:229–237

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saha P, Menezes R (2012) Measuring a category-based blogosphere. In: Complex Networks, vol 424. Studies in Computational Intelligence, Springer, Berlin, pp 131–139

  • Sheehy E, Conrad SL, Brigham LE, Luskin R, Weber P, Eakin M, Schkade L, Hunsicker L (2003) Estimating the number of potential organ donors in the united states. N Engl J Med 349(7):667–674

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siminoff LA, Gordon N, Hewlett J, Arnold RM (2001) Factors influencing families’ consent for donation of solid organs for transplantation. JAMA: JAMA J Am Med Assoc 286(1):71–77

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • The Gallup Organization (2005) National survey of organ and tissue donation attitudes and behavior

  • US Department of Health and Human Services (2009) Annual report of the US organ procurement and transplantation network and the scientific registry of transplant recipients: Transplant data 1999–2008, Tech. rep., Health Resources and Services Administration, Healthcare Systems Bureau, Division of Transplantation

  • Watts D, Strogatz S (1998) Collective dynamics of small-world networks. Nat Biotechnol 393(6684):440–442

    Google Scholar 

  • Yilmaz TU (2011) Importance of education in organ donation. Exp Clin Transplant 9(6):370–375

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang R, Kumar P, Ramcharan T, Reisin E (2004) Kidney transplantation: the evolving challenges. Am J Med Sci 328(3):156–161

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was supported in part by the Health Resources and Services Administration contract 234-2005-370011C. The content is the responsibility of the authors alone and does not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Department of Health and Human Services, nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Sciences, Florida Institute of Technology, Melbourne, FL, USA

    Srividhya Venugopal, Evan Stoner & Ronaldo Menezes

  2. Department of Medicine, Division of Cardiovascular Disease, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA

    Martin Cadeiras

Authors
  1. Srividhya Venugopal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Evan Stoner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Martin Cadeiras
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ronaldo Menezes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ronaldo Menezes.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Venugopal, S., Stoner, E., Cadeiras, M. et al. Understanding organ transplantation in the USA using geographical social networks. Soc. Netw. Anal. Min. 3, 457–473 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13278-012-0089-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13278-012-0089-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation