Living Donation of Vascularized Composite Allografts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Living donation has become a medically and ethically accepted practice in solid organ transplantation. Published proceedings from the international kidney transplant community and from the Ethics Committee of The Transplantation Society articulated the general principles and specific recommendations for living donation, which remain the backbone of Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network requirements and policies. Meanwhile, there have been major advancements in another revolutionary field of transplant medicine: vascularized composite allotransplantation. Recent interventions have demonstrated potential for superior functional and aesthetic outcomes in a single operation when compared to staged conventional reconstructions. In view of these successes, the indications for vascularized composite allotransplantation are expected to broaden to include less extensive types of transplants, which would introduce the possibility of using living vascularized composite allotransplantation donors. In this article, the authors discuss the feasibility and ethics associated with living donation of vascularized composite allografts. The authors explore the current guidelines and policies set by the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network regarding living organ donation. In addition, the authors provide several clinical scenarios in which living donation of vascularized composite allotransplantation could be used to augment the reconstructive ladder currently used by reconstructive surgeons to guide their reconstructive strategies.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".