Attitudes and Knowledge Concerning Corneal Donation in a Population-Based Sample of Urban Chinese Adults
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To better understand knowledge and attitudes concerning corneal donation among Chinese adults. METHODS: Randomly selected residents in predetermined age strata 20 to 60+ years completed home-based questionnaires in each of 12 randomly chosen communities in Guangzhou, southern China. RESULTS: Among 1217 selected persons, 430 (35.3%) completed the questionnaires (mean age 40.4 yrs, 57.9% female). Refusers were older (44.8 yrs, P < 0.001), but sex did not differ (52.2% female, P = 0.07). Among participants, 175 (40.7%) were willing to donate their corneas (WTD). Differences between WTD and not WTD included donation knowledge score (range, 1-12) [WTD (SD) 6.91 ± 2.21, not WTD 5.62 ± 2.43, P < 0.001]; having discussed donation (WTD 26.3%, not WTD 8.63%, P < 0.001); viewing donation as unpopular (WTD 88.0%, not WTD 96.5%, P = 0.001); and feeling donation "damages the body" (WTD 15.4%, not WTD 25.7%, P = 0.013). Associated significantly with WTD in multiple regression models were higher knowledge score [odds ratio (OR) = 1.18, 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.04-1.32, P = 0.008]; not feeling donation "damages the body" (OR = 1.91, 95% CI, 1.07-3.43, P = 0.030); and willingness to discuss donation (OR = 10.6, 95% CI, 3.35-33.9, P < 0.001). WTD did not differ by age (>60 yrs: 22/51, 43.1%; ≤60 yrs: 153/379, 40.4%, P = 0.706). Assuming all those refusing the survey would not donate, 14.4% (175/1217) were WTD for themselves, though only 7.1% (86/1217) would do so on behalf of a family member if they did not know the deceased's preference. CONCLUSIONS: Interventions to increase knowledge and promote discussions about donation, and policies allowing widespread expression of donation preference, are needed in this setting.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it