LIVING ANONYMOUS KIDNEY DONATION
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Health professionals are increasingly turning to living organ donation to augment cadaveric donation. Although living donation is currently performed with donors who are either genetically or emotionally related to the recipient, a 1997 British Columbia Transplant Society survey indicated that 32% of BC residents would be willing to donate a kidney, while alive, to a stranger (unpublished data). The goal of this study is to tap the public pulse about the living anonymous donor (LAD) by replicating and expanding the 1997 findings. METHODS: Five hundred BC residents completed a telephone survey including demographic information, questions about their organ donation behaviors and attitudes, and their willingness to donate a kidney, while alive, to particular individuals (child, spouse, parent, relative, friend, and stranger). To improve the methodological rigor of the 1997 study, an informed condition was added in the current study where participants learned about living donation before being asked about their willingness to donate. RESULTS: There were no differences among the 1997 results and the two conditions in the 2000 survey. Twenty-eight percent of participants in the uninformed condition and 29% of participants in the informed condition indicated that they would be willing to be LADs. LADs were more likely than self-reported non-donors to have registered as cadaveric donors and to endorse attitudes that were congruent with wanting to donate to a stranger. CONCLUSIONS: This study replicates the 1997 findings and increases confidence that a significant minority of British Columbians support living anonymous donation and that some would consider becoming LADs themselves.
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) | 0.001 | 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".