How is organ transplantation depicted in internal medicine and transplantation journals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In their book Spare Parts, published in 1992, Fox and Swazey criticized various aspects of organ transplantation, including the routinization of the procedure, ignorance regarding its inherent uncertainties, and the ethos of transplant professionals. Using this work as a frame of reference, we analyzed articles on organ transplantation published in internal medicine and transplantation journals between 1995 and 2008 to see whether Fox and Swazey's critiques of organ transplantation were still relevant. METHODS: Using the PubMed database, we retrieved 1,120 articles from the top ten internal medicine journals and 4,644 articles from the two main transplantation journals (Transplantation and American Journal of Transplantation). Out of the internal medicine journal articles, we analyzed those in which organ transplantation was the main topic (349 articles). A total of 349 articles were randomly selected from the transplantation journals for content analysis. RESULTS: In our sample, organ transplantation was described in positive terms and was presented as a routine treatment. Few articles addressed ethical issues, patients' experiences and uncertainties related to organ transplantation. The internal medicine journals reported on more ethical issues than the transplantation journals. The most important ethical issues discussed were related to the justice principle: organ allocation, differential access to transplantation, and the organ shortage. CONCLUSION: Our study provides insight into representations of organ transplantation in the transplant and general medical communities, as reflected in medical journals. The various portrayals of organ transplantation in our sample of articles suggest that Fox and Swazey's critiques of the procedure are still relevant.
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 | 0.022 | 0.118 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.024 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.023 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".