Living Anonymous Liver Donation: Case Report and Ethical Justification
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most living organ donations are from genetically or emotionally related donors. Although some transplant centers are willing to accept donations from living anonymous kidney donors (LAKDs), very few centers will accept donations from living anonymous liver donors (LALDs). The difference in acceptance rates is primarily due to the greater risk in liver donation, which is estimated to be 10-fold that of the risk in kidney donation. We present a case of donation from a LALD, the first reported in Canada. There are currently no established standards for LALDs. Our criteria for the ethical acceptability of LALDs require such donors to be physically healthy, mentally competent, altruistic, highly motivated, well-informed and able to give voluntary consent to donation. Another major ethical criterion is that the likely psychological benefit to the LALD balances the physical risks. Our case demonstrates that transplants from LALDs are medically successful and ethically justified under certain conditions. Most living organ donations are from genetically or emotionally related donors. Although some transplant centers are willing to accept donations from living anonymous kidney donors (LAKDs), very few centers will accept donations from living anonymous liver donors (LALDs). The difference in acceptance rates is primarily due to the greater risk in liver donation, which is estimated to be 10-fold that of the risk in kidney donation. We present a case of donation from a LALD, the first reported in Canada. There are currently no established standards for LALDs. Our criteria for the ethical acceptability of LALDs require such donors to be physically healthy, mentally competent, altruistic, highly motivated, well-informed and able to give voluntary consent to donation. Another major ethical criterion is that the likely psychological benefit to the LALD balances the physical risks. Our case demonstrates that transplants from LALDs are medically successful and ethically justified under certain conditions.
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 | 0.001 | 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 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".