Should Jehovah's Witness patients be listed for heart transplantation?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This best evidence topic in Cardiac Surgery was written according to a structured protocol. The question addressed was: for [Jehovah's Witness patients with end-stage heart failure] can these patients undergo a [heart transplantation] without an increased rate of mortality. Altogether, 133 papers were found using the reported search strategy. Of those, 29 papers represented the best evidence to answer the clinical question. Five papers focusing on patients of the Jehovah's Witness (JW) faith who had end-stage heart failure were published. Successful heart transplantation was performed in a total of seven patients without mortality, re-exploration or blood transfusion. One patient had left ventricular reduction surgery twice and another patient had bypass surgery several years after transplantation. Other successful organ transplantations were also reported, including lung, liver, kidney and pancreas in both adult and paediatric patients of the JW faith, with comparable mortality and morbidity to non-JW patients. A publication bias is likely; nevertheless, we conclude that although there are no large studies directly focused on heart transplantation in JW patients, a multidisciplinary team approach to such surgery can make it technically feasible and without an increased mortality risk in suitable candidates. Therefore, such patients may be considered for heart transplantation under selected and favourable circumstances.
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 | 0.006 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".