Estimation of Potential Deceased Organ Donors in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Development of strategies to increase deceased organ donation is dependent on timely, accurate information regarding the number of potential deceased organ donors. Our objective was to estimate the number of potential deceased organ donors in Canada. METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of information captured from hospital separations in Canadian provinces with the exception of Quebec between 2005 and 2009. We studied individuals 70 years or younger who died in hospital. Our primary outcome measure was potential deceased organ donors (identified by the presence of diagnostic codes compatible with donation, the absence of contraindications to donation defined by Canadian Standards, and the use of mechanical ventilation). RESULTS: Among 335 793 hospital deaths, 8274 potential donors were identified. The study method was 81% sensitive and 93% specific for identification of potential donors, and overestimated potential donors by a factor of 1.6- to 2.1-fold when compared to information from chart audits. After accounting for this overestimation, there are conservatively 400 unrecognized potential deceased donors in Canada annually. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest there may be significant potential to increase deceased organ donations in Canada. Further studies to fully characterize the number of potential donors identified by the study method are needed.
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".