MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2047909722 · doi:10.1172/jci38814

Putting a stop to organ trafficking and tourism

2009· article· en· W2047909722 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Karen Honey

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Investigation · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrgan Donation and Transplantation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTourismPoison controlMedicineCriminologyMedical emergencyPolitical sciencePsychologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

If you required an organ transplant and a donor was not currently available, would you be willing to buy the organ you needed? That was the question that Mohamed Sayegh (Figure ​(Figure1),1), director of the Transplantation Research Center at Harvard Medical School, posed in a session entitled “No to organ trafficking and tourism: an in-depth discussion regarding the Declaration of Istanbul” at Renal Week 2008, the American Society of Nephrology Annual Meeting. Figure 1 Mohamed Sayegh is a member of the steering committee that drafted the Declaration of Istanbul on Organ Trafficking and Transplant Tourism. Although no one in the room answered in the affirmative, all four members of the discussion panel — physician-scientists based in the United States and Canada — said that they see patients who have traveled abroad to be transplanted with kidneys that they have purchased. All the panel members agreed that they would now be very vocal in telling patients that this is not something they should consider. However, they all admitted that before they got involved with the Declaration of Istanbul, this might not have been the case. As Sayegh put it, before he learned more about the subject and became a member of the Steering Committee of the Istanbul Summit, he had always thought, so what? The recipient gets a kidney and the donor gets much-needed money. The Declaration of Istanbul on Organ Trafficking and Transplant Tourism (1) is the result of a summit in Istanbul convened by The Transplantation Society and the International Society of Nephrology to discuss organ trafficking, transplant tourism, and transplant commercialism. Although organ transplantation has prolonged and improved the lives of many people throughout the world, there is a widespread shortage of donors, which is one of the main factors that has led to the global problems of organ trafficking and transplant tourism. The WHO has estimated that approximately 10% of organ transplants performed throughout the world involve these practices. However, this percentage is much higher in many developing countries: one study indicates that by 2006, two-thirds of the 2,000 kidney transplants performed in Pakistan were for foreign recipients, most of whom came from the Middle East and South Asia, as well as some from Europe and North America (2). Organ vendors mainly come from vulnerable populations, and particularly from impoverished populations in developing countries such as Pakistan, the Philippines, and Colombia. Sayegh said that in drafting the Declaration of Istanbul, members of the steering committee had paid utmost attention to the concerns and issues raised by representatives from the countries most affected by the problem. Ultimately, the Declaration was agreed upon by consensus among the 150 participants in the summit — individuals (physicians and scientists, representatives of governmental and social agencies, social scientists, legal scholars, and ethicists) from all but one of the 79 countries that perform kidney transplants. Key to the Declaration are its definitions of the activities it seeks to combat: organ trafficking, transplant commercialism, and transplant tourism (1). However, Sayegh told the JCI that the most important issues raised in the Declaration are those that address how to implement it, and that central to implementation is communication with the many groups involved, including physicians, medical societies, government agencies, pharmaceutical companies, and funding bodies. Sayegh stressed that much of the work that has been going on in the months since the Declaration was finalized has been to ensure that there is a defined strategy to implement it. As part of the way forward, Sayegh said that the steering committee is in the process of forming a Custodian Group that will oversee the implementation of the Declaration. There are also a number of task forces being convened, which will communicate with medical societies, pharmaceutical companies, and funding bodies to develop rules by which each entity should abide and to determine the consequences of not adhering to the rules. The goal is to ensure that those involved in organ trafficking are no longer accepted by their respective communities and will therefore find it much harder to continue the practice. Sayegh also noted that the Custodian Group is hoping to connect with journals to further develop ethical policies that have the same effect. Other task forces have already been deployed to talk to government agencies in areas that are known hotspots for organ trafficking and transplant tourism. Sayegh said that through the strong local networks that are being built, they have received feedback about the activities going on in these regions, and that in some instances the individuals involved have been sanctioned by the medical societies to which they belong. Despite the achievements so far, Sayegh was keen to point out to the JCI that the Declaration of Istanbul is not going to make organ trafficking disappear. He likened it to drug trafficking, saying that because money is involved it is impossible to eradicate. However, he promised that the Custodian Group will do everything it possibly can to curb the practice and make life hard for those involved.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.063

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0150.013
Scholarly communication0.0140.012
Open science0.0020.016
Research integrity0.0240.030
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.005

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.

Opus teacher head0.070
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.322 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical InvestigationSame topicOrgan Donation and TransplantationFrench-language works237,207