MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2333012668 · doi:10.1097/mot.0000000000000280

Fostering liver living donor liver transplantation

2016· review· en· W2333012668 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Gary Levy, Nazia Selzner, David Grant

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Organ Transplantation · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrgan Transplantation Techniques and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
FundersUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsLiver transplantationLiving donor liver transplantationMedicineTransplantationInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The review discusses issues pertinent to fostering professional and public interest in living donor liver transplantation. We discuss practices that we have adopted at our center, issues that have arisen and provide suggestions to expand live donor transplantation. RECENT FINDINGS: To bridge the gap between the current supply and demand of deceased donor organs, the transplant program in Toronto established the busiest live donor liver transplant program in the western world. To date, we have performed 664 live liver donor procedures with no donor deaths and excellent recipient and donor outcomes. To foster and grow live donation, we established a strong culture supporting live donation; hired a full-time, dedicated team of individuals to support the live donor program; obtained financial support for donors through a partnership agreement with the Trillium Gift of Life Network; developed linkages with the media, community service groups and the general public; generated patient education materials; and established a website. SUMMARY: With the present and future trends of deceased donation worldwide, we anticipate that live liver donation will remain an important option to fully meet the needs of patients requiring liver transplantation for the foreseeable future.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.721
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.113
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.278 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations26
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in Organ TransplantationSame topicOrgan Transplantation Techniques and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207