Discrepancy in Psychological Attitudes Toward Living Donor Liver Transplantation Between Recipients and Donors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Brief Background Mutual understanding between recipients and donors is indispensable when living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is performed, which, however, has gained little attention and remains unaddressed in the literature. Methods Fifty-seven pairs, a recipient (mean ± SD age at the operation, 48.3 ± 10.6 years; mean ± SD years after the operation, 6.2 ± 4.7 years) and his or her donor, who underwent LDLT completed a 13-item questionnaire on a 7-point Likert scale (1: strongly agree to 7: strongly disagree) that was designed to assess for their psychological attitudes toward transplantation. They were also asked to estimate their donor's or recipient's response to the questionnaire, respectively. Values of interest were compared between groups, using paired t tests. Following Bonferroni correction, a P value less than 0.0038 (0.05/13) was considered statistically significant. Results Significant differences were observed between actually answered and estimated responses in 7 of the 13 items in the questionnaire for donors. For example, donors did not feel pressure to become a donor to the same degree as their recipients estimated (4.6 ± 1.9 vs 3.4 ± 1.8). In contrast, only 1 item showed a significant difference between actually answered and estimated responses in the questionnaire for recipients; recipients did not worry about the transplanted liver compared to their donors' estimation (3.1 ± 1.9 vs 2.1 ± 0.8). Conclusions Recipients did not fully understand the donors' feelings toward LDLT, whereas donors almost correctly understood their recipients' attitudes. Our findings clearly revealed the gap in their mutual understanding and emphasize the need of psychological education to bridge the gap. After a mean time of 6.2 years, the authors assessed psychological attitudes in both liver living donors and their recipients using a 13-item questionnaire on a 7-point Likert scale, donors estimating recipients’ answers and vice versa. There are strong discrepancies in donors between estimated and actual answers in 7 out of 13 questions. In contrast in recipients, only 1 item (worry about the liver) was significantly different. This highlights different psychological approaches between donors and their paired recipients.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".