MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Fundamental Role of the Organ Donation Organization (ODO) in Risk Management

2017· article· en· W2753437781 on OpenAlexaffabout
Mariane Larivière, Michel Carrier, Prosanto Chaudhury, Louis le Hardÿ de Beaulieu

Bibliographic record

VenueTransplantation · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrgan Donation and Transplantation
Canadian institutionsThe Quebec Population Health Research NetworkUniversité de MontréalMontreal Heart InstituteMcGill UniversityUniversité du Québec
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDonationTransplantationIntensive care medicineAuditOrgan donationFamily medicineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction The process of organ donation and donor evaluation is strictly regulated. Despite this, solid organ transplantation necessarily involves risk. Some risks are related to the surgical procedure, others to the quality of the organs, still others to the donor. Donor risks include the transmission of infection, malignancy or other illness. In Quebec, the Ministry of Health mandates Transplant Quebec, the ODO, to investigate donor related complications. Methods The events reported by the transplant programs from 2012‐2016 were reviewed according to Transplant Quebec’s standardized protocol. The Transplant Quebec audit protocol involves 3 components: systematic review of all donor charts for conformity with regulations, in-depth review of all incidents reported by the transplant programs and systematic follow-up of recipient outcomes. Results Over a 5-year year period, 48 reports were received, for 2296 transplants and 889 donors. Of these, 25% concerned infectious complications, 12.5% were related to malignancies, and 62.5% were related to other issues. In 2 cases (4.2%) the donor charts and structures communication between transplant programs and the ODO provided conclusive evidence that the outcome was donor-related. In a further 2 cases, the donor charts were missing key elements that prevented demonstration of a causal link, while in the remaining 44 cases (91.6%), the donor charts conclusively showed that the outcome of interest was not causally related to the donor. In 1 case an illness identified in the donor required follow-up and counselling of the donor family. Conclusion The Transplant Quebec model helps avoid major donor related complications and provides a systematic method to ensure conformity with regulations, to collect and analyze all donor-related complications and platform to share information between clinicians. Additionally, systematic review allows the identification of risks that may have repercussions for the donor family as well. Donor derived complications associated with organ transplantation are real although fortunately rare. Through a systematic approach, the ODO plays a fundamental role in ensuring recipient safety. The diligent reporting of potentially donor related outcomes by clinicians is critical to the success of the risk management system.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.098
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.114
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.107
Threshold uncertainty score0.517

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0980.114
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.012
Scholarly communication0.0140.007
Open science0.0030.009
Research integrity0.0030.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransplantationSame topicOrgan Donation and TransplantationFrench-language works237,207