Adult liver transplant survey: policies towards eligibility criteria in Canada and the United States 2007
Bibliographic record
Abstract
GOALS: To assess the current practice patterns of liver transplant centres in Canada and the USA regarding transplant eligibility. BACKGROUND: Liver transplantation is an evolving field and today remains the only life-sustaining treatment for end-stage liver disease. Issues of allocation and transplant eligibility are important factors in the ethical practice of medicine. STUDY: Questionnaires were mailed to liver transplant programme directors in Canada and the USA inquiring about current practices regarding recipient eligibility. RESULTS: This study demonstrates that there is consensus in the use of other eligibility criteria, including non-compliance, social status, abstinence from alcohol and methadone and cocaine use. Interestingly, literature is lacking to support the use of these parameters as eligibility criteria with the exception of alcohol. There is a lack in consensus regarding marijuana use, human immunodeficiency virus status, ability to accept blood transfusions and prisoner status. The literature suggests that liver transplantation in select patients who refuse blood transfusions results in good outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Important decisions regarding transplant eligibility still have to be made empirically in the absence of scientific literature about various social issues. While consensus among transplant programmes is useful, it is important that we continue to use the evidence in the literature to revise these eligibility criteria, keeping in mind ethical principles applied to the access and allocation of a scarce resource.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".