MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2803901893 · doi:10.1111/petr.13228

Fairness, severe intellectual disability, and the special case of transplantation

2018· review· en· W2803901893 on OpenAlexaff
Aaron Wightman, Aviva Goldberg, Douglas S. Diekema

Bibliographic record

VenuePediatric Transplantation · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPrenatal Screening and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIntellectual disabilityTransplantationValue (mathematics)PopulationEconomic JusticePediatricsIntensive care medicinePsychiatrySurgeryLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Children with severe intellectual disability have historically been excluded from solid organ transplantation. The purpose of this article was to review the arguments for excluding this population, including claims of poorer recipient and graft survival, a lower QoL as pediatric recipients become adults, and poorer outcomes for other, more deserving pediatric transplant candidates, and make the case that these arguments are no longer persuasive. We will argue that pediatric transplant centers for reasons of social justice, value of relationships, power differential, and fairness should generally not consider intellectual ability or disability as a criterion when making decisions regarding organ transplant eligibility.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.749
Threshold uncertainty score0.773

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.279 · 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 designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations13
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePediatric TransplantationSame topicPrenatal Screening and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207