In-house coordination project for organ and tissue procurement: social responsibility and promising results
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: to report the results of evaluation regarding changes in the number of potential donor referrals, actual donors, and conversion rates after the implementation of an in-house organ and tissue donation for transplantation coordination project. METHODS: epidemiological study, both retrospective and transversal, was performed with organ donation data from the Secretariat of Health for the State and the in-house organ donation coordination project of a beneficent hospital. The data was compared using nonparametric statistical Mann-Whitney test, and the Student's t-test, considering a significance level of 5% (p <0.05). RESULTS: there were statistically significant differences (p < 0.05), before and after the implementation of the project on the number of potential donor notification/month (3.05 - 4.7 ), number of actual donor/month (0.78 to 1.60) and rate of conversion ( 24.7 to 34.8 %). The hospitals 1, 2, 7 and 8 had significant results in potential donor, actual donor or conversion rate. CONCLUSION: the presence of an in-house coordinator is promising and beneficial, the specialist is important to change the indicators of efficiency, which consequently reduces the waiting lists for organ transplants.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".