MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2740646788 · doi:10.1002/bjs.4242

Transplant 01–06

2003· article· en· W2740646788 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Steven A. White

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish journal of surgery · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEthics and Legal Issues in Pediatric Healthcare
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aims: By adopting the Edmonton protocol islets from at least two organ donors are needed to achieve insulin independence. The aim of this study was to determine what is the potential number of donor pancreata that could be made available for clinical islet transplantation in the UK. Methods: During the year 2001 a total of 704 multiorgan retrievals were performed in the United Kingdom. UK Transplant were contacted to identify the number of donor pancreases that were utilized for whole pancreas transplants. Of the remaining multi-organ retrievals the primary reason for failed retrieval was sort. Results: Of the 704 retrievals 34 were deemed to be outside of the age range for useful clinical islet transplantation (ages 0-9 yrs and 70 +). Of the remaining 670 retrievals 47 were used for whole pancreas transplants. Therefore a maximum of 623 could have been available for clinical islet isolation/transplantation. Of these 178 (29%) were offered for research purposes and were retrieved. In theory the majority of these could have been allocated for islet transplantation. Of the remaining 445, 189 (30%) were deemed to be unsuitable because of age and in 169 cases the family refused permission (27%) in both situations the pancreas was not offered. Conclusion: A significant number of human donor pancreases are not being made available to either whole pancreas or islet transplant programs. Better awareness and education of donor criteria and improved communication with potential donor families the number of available human donor pancreas could increase three-fold.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.525
Threshold uncertainty score0.340

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.258 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish journal of surgerySame topicEthics and Legal Issues in Pediatric HealthcareFrench-language works237,207