Sex and gender considerations in transplantation research: protocol for a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite the growing appreciation of the importance of sex and gender considerations in transplantation research, there is currently no framework or good practice guidelines for the appropriate handling of sex and gender issues in human allotransplantation research. METHODS: We will conduct a scoping review to synthesize the evidence on how matters of sex and gender have been handled in human allotransplantation research. We will survey the literature discussing sex and gender in relation to transplantation, including adult and pediatric patients, hematopoietic and solid organ transplant recipients as well as organ donors. We will search MEDLINE and Embase for literature discussing sex and gender in relation to transplantation. Two reviewers will independently evaluate the eligibility of all identified titles and abstracts for inclusion in the full text review, as well as data extraction. Descriptive data and information on how sex and gender have been considered in human transplantation research will be reported. DISCUSSION: This scoping review will be an important stepping stone towards the development of good practice guidelines on study design and analysis considerations when handling sex and gender issues in human transplantation research. This scoping review can also help identify methodological issues that restrict the translation of transplantation research findings into clinical practice related to underestimation of sex/gender differences. This review will ultimately identify major gaps, inform donor-recipient selection, guide personalized interventions, and prioritize research recommendations in human transplantation research.
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 | 0.104 | 0.141 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.016 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.075 | 0.015 |
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".