Determinants of Transplant Surgeons' Willingness to Provide Organs to Patients Infected with HBV, HCV or HIV
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The common provision of organs to patients infected with hepatitis B virus (HBV) and hepatitis C virus (HCV), but not to those infected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), has been attributed to perceived or real differences in transplantation efficacy among these populations. However, other explanations remain possible. We surveyed all active U.S. transplant surgeons to identify determinants of their views of the propriety of transplantation among HBV-, HCV-, and HIV-infected patients. The 347 surgeons (56.1%) returning completed questionnaires believed that HCV- and HIV-infected patients have similar post-transplant survival (p = 0.9), but that both groups fare worse than HBV-infected patients (p < 0.00001 for both comparisons). Most transplant surgeons considered HBV- and HCV-infected patients to be appropriate transplantation candidates (p = 1.0 for this comparison), whereas one-third considered HIV-infected patients to be appropriate candidates (p < 0.00001 when compared with HBV- or HCV-infected patients). That surgeons are generally willing to transplant HCV-infected patients but not HIV-infected patients, and yet believe these groups will have similar post-transplant survival, suggests that survival estimates alone do not explain surgeons' choices. HIV-infected patients should have equal access to organs unless or until evidence emerges that they fare substantially worse than other potential recipients.
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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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 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".