Organ Donation Programs and the Definition of Success
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canadian National Transplant Research Program. Background The effectiveness of organ donation program performance has been predominantly evaluated through cross-country comparisons of quality indicators and legislative processes. However, the variation of performance within and among programs remains poorly explained and understood. Therefore, this scoping review aims to synthesize the current evidence on key organizational attributes and processes of international organ donation programs associated with successful outcomes. Methods We will follow a systematic scoping review protocol in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute. This will include a detailed search of appropriate databases (PUBMED, CINAHL, EMBASE, LILACS, ABI Business ProQuest, Business Source Premiera) and grey literature (Organ donation association websites, Google Scholar (first eight pages), and Research Gate) and the reference list of all identified documents will be scanned. Inclusion criteria: studies about program evaluation, measures related to cost-benefit and quality; full text available in Spanish, Portuguese or English, with no year limit. All documents will be reviewed by two independent reviewers to screen: (1) studies selection by title and abstract reading, and (2) study selection after full text reading. The synthesis will include quantitative analysis (e.g., frequency analysis) of general data on the type of study, country of study, terminologies used to describe “success", etc.; and qualitative analysis (e.g., content analysis) of the components of the research purpose and conceptual definitions of “success” in organ donation programs. Expected/Preliminary Outcomes The outcomes of this review will unfold the current meaning of “success” for the scientific community in organ donation and transplantation programs worldwide.? We will be able to present the preliminary findings of this scoping review for the first time at the TTS conference.
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 | 0.031 | 0.072 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.026 | 0.039 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".