What information about donation after circulatory death is available on the Internet for potential donor families?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study is to determine what information about donation after circulatory death (DCD) is available on the Internet and to document the common statements for and against DCD. METHODS: The search terms non-heart-beating donor, donation after cardiac death, DCD, deceased donor, organ donation, and organ harvesting were entered into the four most-accessed English-language Internet search engines. The top 10 webpages from each search (240 webpages) yielded 116 unique sites. Three reviewers reviewed each webpage and recorded statements for and against DCD as well as site type, tone, and mention of DCD. RESULTS: While 59 (50.9%) of the overall 116 sites included DCD information, only 10% of sites found with the term "organ donation" mentioned DCD at all. The sites that did include DCD were mostly (78%) of the type "medical journal" or "hospital or university webpage" and 89% of these had a positive or neutral tone. Nine positive and nine negative tropes were defined using the Grounded Theory Method. CONCLUSION: This study reveals the lack of information regarding DCD in organ donation webpages. Thoughtful responses to these statements should be considered in family discussions and in the design of future webpages.
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 | 0.007 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".