A Survey of Increased Infectious Risk Donor Utilization in Canadian Transplant Programs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Donors at increased risk of transmitting viral infections are a potential source of transplantable organs. Studies demonstrate that organs from increased risk donors (IRDs) are associated with excellent outcomes. However, considerable variation in practice likely exists. METHODS: We performed a cross-country survey of Canadian Organ Transplant centers to determine organ utilization practices from IRDs. RESULTS: Of 40 surveys sent to transplant programs across Canada, 24 (60%) were returned. Of those, 60.9% (15/24) had a formal policy for their use, and 21.7% (5/24) had never accepted an IRD. Only 41.7% (10/24) had access to timely nucleic acid testing (NAT), and respondents were more likely to accept IRD if NAT was available. For example the likelihood of using organs from an intravenous drug user increased from 12.5% (4/24) with serology negative donors to 70.8% (17/24) if NAT was available and the donor had no increased activity within the window period (P < 0.001). Only 37.5% (9/24) discussed the use of IRDs with candidates at listing, with 54.2% (13/24) stating that having a standardized consent would increase utilization of IRDs. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that availability of NAT would increase IRD utilization. In addition written policies and procedures on IRD use and the consent process would be recommended in many Canadian centers.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".