The Living Anonymous Kidney Donor: Lunatic or Saint?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Studies indicate that 11% to 54% of individuals surveyed would consider donating a kidney, while alive, to a stranger. The idea of ‘living anonymous donors’ (LADs) as a donor source, however, has not been embraced by the medical community. Reservations focus on the belief that LADs might be psychologically unstable and thus unsuitable donors. Our goal was to inform policy development by exploring the psycho-social make up and motivations of the LAD. Ninety-three unsolicited individuals contacted our center expressing interest in living anonymous donation. Of these, 43 participated in our study, completing two extensive inventories of psychopathology and personality disorder and taking part in the Comprehensive Psycho-Social Interview (CPSI). From the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI), the revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R), and the CPSI, coders assessed psychological health, psycho-social suitability, commitment, and motivations. Twenty-one participants passed the stringent criteria to be considered potential LADs. Content analysis of motivations showed that potential LADs were more likely than non-LADs (those who did not pass the criteria) to have a spiritual belief system and to be altruistic. Non-LADs were more likely than potential LADs to use donation to make a statement against their families. The authors conclude with a preliminary outline of eight policy recommendations. Studies indicate that 11% to 54% of individuals surveyed would consider donating a kidney, while alive, to a stranger. The idea of ‘living anonymous donors’ (LADs) as a donor source, however, has not been embraced by the medical community. Reservations focus on the belief that LADs might be psychologically unstable and thus unsuitable donors. Our goal was to inform policy development by exploring the psycho-social make up and motivations of the LAD. Ninety-three unsolicited individuals contacted our center expressing interest in living anonymous donation. Of these, 43 participated in our study, completing two extensive inventories of psychopathology and personality disorder and taking part in the Comprehensive Psycho-Social Interview (CPSI). From the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI), the revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R), and the CPSI, coders assessed psychological health, psycho-social suitability, commitment, and motivations. Twenty-one participants passed the stringent criteria to be considered potential LADs. Content analysis of motivations showed that potential LADs were more likely than non-LADs (those who did not pass the criteria) to have a spiritual belief system and to be altruistic. Non-LADs were more likely than potential LADs to use donation to make a statement against their families. The authors conclude with a preliminary outline of eight policy recommendations.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it