Organ trafficking in Canada: Is it relevant to the urologist?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Organ transplant commercialism has been condemned by the World Health Organization for decades. In 2008, the Istanbul Declaration proclaimed that the poor who sell their organs are being exploited, while unregulated and illegal transplantation place physical harm to both organ donor and recipient. In addition to the ethical issues that underlie the practice of transplant tourism, there is mounting evidence that transplant outcomes are poor. The authors have unequivocally shown that recipient mortality and morbidity rates are unacceptably high, likely as a result of cost-cutting and limited expertise in the practice of commercial transplantation.1 The fact that a sister renal transplant group in Ontario has published similar data indicate that this phenomenon is highly relevant to Canadian transplant centres.2 Accordingly, the Canadian Society of Transplantation has provided a policy statement to summarize the Canadian Healthcare Providers’ fiduciary and legal obligations to patients who participate in transplant tourism both before and after transplantation.3 All Canadian surgeons and physicians who provide care to renal transplant recipients should have a working knowledge of this policy statement.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".