Risk acceptance of human T‐lymphotropic virus infection in solid organ transplantation—A survey of Atlantic Canadian ambulatory patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Human T-lymphotropic virus (HTLV) has an estimated prevalence of 12 per 100 000 in the general Canadian population (with higher rates in distinct groups) and is most commonly transmitted by breast feeding, sexual intercourse, sharing injection tools, and blood transfusions. A minority of those infected will develop severe disease. Health Canada mandates that people who are positive for HTLV are not suitable to be solid organ donors. Given the apparent low-disease burden of HTLV in Canada, we explored HTLV risk tolerance among patients, in the context of organ transplantations. METHODS: Using telephone, and in-person questionnaires, we assessed willingness of patients to accept the risk of HTLV infection in hypothetical scenarios in which they required an organ transplant for survival. RESULTS: Seventy-four outpatients attending various medical clinics participated in the survey. In a standard gamble scenario, 37.5% of respondents would have accepted a solid organ transplant regardless of HTLV risk, as compared to 27.3% and 24.6% accepting organ transplantation if there was a risk of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) or of human virus Y (HVY; a fictitious virus describing HTLV in terms of neurological outcomes), respectively. Similarly, the median longevity traded to ensure a virus-free organ was 4-5 years regarding all viruses, except for HVY, for which the median time exchanged to ensure a virus-free organ was 10 (out of a possible 20) years. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that patients, though willing to accept some risk of viral infection, would not be willing to forgo HTLV screening of solid organs.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".