Society for the Advancement of Transplant Anesthesia: Liver Transplant Anesthesia Fellowship—White Paper Advocating Measurable Proficiency in Transplant Specialties Training
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
The anesthesia community has openly debated if the care of transplant patients was generalist or specialist care ever since the publication of an opinion paper in 1999 recommended subspecialty training in the field of liver transplantation anesthesia. In the past decade, liver transplant anesthesia has become more complex with a sicker patient population and evolving evidence-based practices. Transplant training is currently not required for accreditation or certification in anesthesiology, and not all anesthesia residency programs are associated with transplant centers. Yet there is evidence that patient outcome is affected by the experience of the anesthesiologist with liver transplants as part of a multidisciplinary care team. Requests for a formal review of the inequities in training opportunities and requirements led the Society for the Advancement for Transplant Anesthesia (SATA) to begin the task of developing post-graduate fellowship training recommendations. In this article, members of the SATA Working Group on Transplant Anesthesia Education present their reasoning for specialized education and conclusions about which pathways can better prepare trainees to care for complex transplant patients.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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