MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1497617733

Do medical students have the knowledge needed to maximize organ donation rates?

2003· article· en· W1497617733 on OpenAlexaff
Trevor Bardell, Duncan Hunter, William Kent, Minto K Jain

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrgan Donation and Transplantation
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOrgan donationEconomic shortageTest (biology)Family medicineDonationOrgan procurementAffect (linguistics)Medical knowledgeMedical educationSurgeryTransplantationPsychology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: The chronic shortage of organs for donation could be improved by increasing the numbers of potential and actual donors. Physicians can play a key role in solving this problem but may miss opportunities because they lack knowledge about organ donation to answer questions or concerns. Education of physicians early in their careers may lead to better procurement rates for donor organs. We carried out a study at Queen's University in Kingston, Ont., to determine whether medical students have sufficient knowledge of topics shown to affect organ donation rates. METHODS: Medical students from years 1-4 completed a self-administered questionnaire. Section 1 tested general knowledge about organ donation; section 2 tested the students' ability to identify potential donors; and section 3 dealt with the approach to the potential donor's family. Univariate predictors of mean test scores were assessed using the t-test. RESULTS: Of 322 medical students who received the questionnaire, 260 (81%) responded. The mean age of the students was 25 years and 54% were men. The mean knowledge score was 6.7 out of a possible score of 14. Third-year students had the best knowledge scores (7.6), followed by fourth- (7.4), second- (6.6) and first-year students (5.7). Teaching about organ donation and a student's comfort with approaching a family for organ donation were also predictive of higher knowledge scores. There was no correlation between knowledge score and age, gender or whether the student was carrying a signed donor card. Knowledge scores were low in all 3 sections. Thirty-six percent of students did not know that brain death means that the patient is dead rather than in a coma. Half the medical students believed that people of certain religious groups should not be approached about organ donation. CONCLUSIONS: Medical students possess limited knowledge about organ donation topics important for maximizing procurement rates. A teaching intervention designed to target these shortcomings may be beneficial.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.278 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations144
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicOrgan Donation and TransplantationFrench-language works237,207