Call for an End to Unethical Transplant Practices: A Concerted Effort by the Transplant Community
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Organ transplantation has become the treatment of choice for end-stage organ disease, and as outcomes of transplantation have improved, the number of patients with end-stage organ failure listed for transplantation has increased dramatically over the years. As a result, organ shortage has become one of the greatest challenges facing the field of organ transplantation today. The unmet need for transplants has resulted in many systematic approaches to increase donor rates,1 but there have also been practices that have crossed the boundaries of legal and ethical acceptability. The Transplantation Society has worked diligently to curtail “transplant tourism” and “organ trafficking” globally. Among our primary concerns have been meeting the growing demand for organs through ethical living and deceased organ donation by encouraging the establishment and enhancement of such programs throughout the world, promoting scientific understanding and equality in standards of clinical practice and patient care, transparency in transplantation activities, and of course educational programs to address the needs of transplant programs everywhere in the world.2-4 Each country has a responsibility to assess the transplantation needs of its own people, and the goal that we must strive for is the establishment of self-sufficiency regarding organ donation and procurement. Many countries have already achieved high rates of “deceased organ donation,” and they set a fine example to other countries where deceased donation rates are very low or, as in some countries, nonexistent. However, despite these various efforts, there continue to be reports of unethical cases of organ donation and transplantation from all over the world, and it is time for the international transplant community to take a firm stance against such activities. In light of these concerns: TTS encourages all countries to eradicate unacceptable practices, while introducing programs that strive to achieve national or regional self-sufficiency in meeting the need for organ transplants. TTS continues to devote its efforts towards developing deceased organ donation by encouraging the establishment and enhancement of such programs throughout the world. TTS requests that scientific meeting organizers ensure all data and scientific findings that are presented are consistent with ethical and legal transplant activities. TTS calls for all scientific journals to assess all submissions for possible cases of unethical transplant activity and reject those papers that do not abide by ethical principles. Although living donation can be a safe and acceptable source of organs if performed within ethical guidelines, our aim as the transplant community should now be to work towards a system of meeting the organ demand as much as possible with deceased donation. This will not only result in the reduction of unethical transplantation activities, but will also make an enormous difference to those patients awaiting transplants in which living organ donors are not an option.
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 | 0,071 | 0,104 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,021 | 0,024 |
| Communication savante | 0,031 | 0,026 |
| Science ouverte | 0,006 | 0,033 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,049 | 0,067 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,021 | 0,004 |
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 ».