How patients manage life and health while waiting for a liver transplant
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Liver transplantation offers a lifesaving treatment for individuals with terminal disease. An extended waiting period may contribute to anxiety and undermine overall health status, jeopardizing the patient's opportunity for successful transplantation. The purpose of this grounded theory qualitative study was to discover how individuals experience life and health resources during the wait for a liver transplant. In-depth interviews, conducted with 12 adults who had awaited liver transplantation for more than a year, were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using grounded theory methods. The findings portrayed the transplant waiting period to be a process of experiencing confinement, disciplining the self, and ultimately letting go and surrendering one's self to accept available, accessible, and appropriate resources for health. Resources for life and health used by the participants included: following instructions, presenting self positively, seeking information and support, controlling symptoms, using distraction and denial, changing attitudes, setting and achieving new goals, isolating oneself and entrusting oneself to another. The findings suggest the importance of increasing supportive, health-oriented care aimed at promoting resources for everyday living and health during the transplant waiting period.
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".