Response to Chen et al and the Accompanying Commentary
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
We question the decision by Transplantation to publish the article by Chen et al1 in relation to the development of liver transplantation at the Sun Yat-sen First Affiliated Hospital. Furthermore, the accompanying Commentary by Ascher and Delmonico2 provides unverified assurances that fail to acknowledge the body of evidence. As noted by the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation Society, “the government of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) stands alone in continuing to systematically support the procurement of organs or tissue from executed prisoners.”3 The independent China Tribunal, following strict legal protocol, concluded “absent a satisfactory explanation as to the source of readily available organs [the Tribunal] concludes that forced organ harvesting continues till today.”4 Acknowledging these grave concerns, scientific journals must exercise caution when reviewing clinical transplantation articles from China.5 Regarding the Commentary, praise for claimed reforms are based on unverified trust. However, because of persistent denials regarding any killing of prisoners of conscience6; falsified data during the supposed “reform” process7; and breaches of the dead donor rule,8 that trust has not been earned. No verifiable developments have occurred to abrogate the statement made by Francis Delmonico in June 2016 during an appearance at a Congressional hearing on organ transplant abuse in China. During an exchange, US House of Representative Chris Smith asked Francis Delmonico this question: “In 2016, how do you independently verify [Chinese government claims that there is no transplant abuse], when there has been such a backdrop of terrible duplicity, lies, and deception on the part of this government? Trust and verify; how do you do it?” Francis Delmonico responded: “I’m not an apologist. I’m not here to tell you not to worry. I’m not here to verify, that’s not my job. I’m here to say to you that there is a move within the country to change.”9 As recently as June 2021, 9 United Nations Special Rapporteurs sent joint correspondence to the Chinese Government regarding “credible evidence” of forced organ harvesting targeting minorities based on religion and/or ethnicity.10 Yet, the Commentary urges the international transplant community to have unconditional trust without any reasonable doubt. Without genuine accountability for past abuses, and transparency of current practice for review by independent auditors,11 we cannot believe claimed reforms have stopped the execution of prisoners of conscience which has fueled, and likely still fuels, China’s transplant system. Although a few bad apples may not spoil the whole barrel, sadly, we do not know which apples are good or bad in relation to the Chinese transplantation system. As transplant professionals, we must bear in mind the system we are interacting with is accused of heinous crimes against humanity involving the mass murder of innocents. Why should we believe these accusations are unfounded? China fails to adhere to the WHO Guiding Principles on Human Cell, Tissue and Organ Transplantation related to transparency (#9), traceability (#10), and openness to scrutiny (#11).12 Willful blindness and self-delusion by the international transplantation community cannot be a substitute for openness and transparency.
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 | 0,011 | 0,122 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,007 | 0,006 |
| Communication savante | 0,007 | 0,005 |
| Science ouverte | 0,007 | 0,005 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,087 | 0,067 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,024 | 0,019 |
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 ».