Differences in psychosocial profiles between men and women living kidney donors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The expansion of kidney transplantation by living donation has led to a disproportional increase in the women to men ratio among donors and this difference cannot be explained on the basis of medical exclusion. The present study was designed to test whether women donors are more likely to (i) display altruistic and gender-typed nurturing behaviour and (ii) be subtly influenced by family pressure to donate and less able to resist this pressure. METHODS: All 71 (61% women) individuals who had donated a kidney at our centre between 1995 and 2005 were sent a survey. Thirty-nine individuals (71% response rate; 64% female participation) filled out and returned the survey, which included standardized measures of altruism, self-esteem, family dynamics and endorsement of gender-stereotyped roles, as well as sociodemographic questions and questions about donation. RESULTS: Findings show no difference between women and men in terms of the psychological attributes measured. One woman and two men reported having felt pressure to donate, and 92% of women compared with 54% of men reported having felt free to change their mind. Men took longer than women to make the decision to donate. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that among individuals who have already donated, there is no evidence that women may be more inclined to donate than man because of differences in their psychosocial profiles or because they may be more vulnerable to family pressure. Future research may gain from focusing on men and women donors and non-donors in families where transplantation is being considered.
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".