Evolution of Donation and Transplantation after Circulatory Death Activities (2012-2016)
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Introduction The Newsletter Transplant of the Council of Europe publishes donation and transplantation international figures for organ, tissues and haematopoietic stem cell, and the documents produced by the committee of experts on the organizational aspects of co-operation in organ transplantation. It is edited annually since 1996 by the Spanish National Transplant Organization (ONT). We have taken into account the last 5 years (2012-2016) with the objective of describing the evolution of donation after circulatory death (DCD) figures and transplants performed from cardiac death donations. Materials and Methods Data Source: Information of the Newsletter is collected through a network of national focal points designated by the Ministries of Health of the participating countries, by means of a specifically designed questionnaire.Scope and Study Period: We selected the 22 countries that are nowadays performing DCDto perform a descriptive analysis and assess the development of their cardiac death donation and transplantation activities during the period 2012 to 2016. Neither Canada nor Russia report data for transplantation from DCD, so they have not been taken into account in that area. Results and Discussion In 2012 there were 2339 DCD vs 3557 in 2016, representing a 52% increase. By countries, the biggest increase has occurred in Italy, a 300% increase, going from 5 donors (0.08 per million population) to 20 (0.33). The country with the largest number of actual donors in absolute numbers is USA: 1684. The country with the highest rate of DCD pmp in 2016 is Spain (10.74). Since 2012, DCD is being performed in 8 more countries: Ireland, Israel, Lithuania, New Zeland, Norway, Poland, Portugal and Saudi Arabia.There has been a decrease in DCD in two countries: Russia and Latvia. Solid organ transplants from DCD have increased in this 5 year period. Kidney transplants have gone from 3179 (4.34 pmp) to 5176 (6.91). Increases over 100% were reported in Italy and Spain. There were decreases in Austria, Ireland, Latvia and Netherlands. Liver transplants from DCD are performed in 11 of the 20 countries for which data is available. In 2012 it was only performed in 9 countries. Liver transplants from DCD have increased from 534 (0.73 pmp) in 2012 to 970 (1.30) in 2016. Increases over 100% were observed in France and Spain. There were decreases in Australia and Austria.There were 138 lung transplants from DCD in 2012 and 266 in 2016. Lung transplants from DCD are only performed in 9 countries. There have not been variations in pancreas transplants during the study period. There were 71 transplants in 2012 and 72 in 2016. Pancreas transplants from DCD were performed in 3 countries during 2016. Conclusion DCD and transplants from DCD vary amongst countries reporting to the Newsletter Transplant. There is a steady increase in DCD donation and transplantation taking into consideration all the data available.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,004 | 0,005 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».