Patients' Perspectives on Early Liver Transplantation in Alcohol‐Related Liver Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Liver transplant programs in Canada require a period of 6 months of abstinence from alcohol before considering a patient with liver disease secondary to alcohol for transplantation. Although some studies have demonstrated good outcomes following a transplant in carefully selected patients before the 6‐month abstinence period has been met, there have been arguments against this, including the claim that the public has a general negative perception of those with alcohol dependence. We performed a multicenter cross‐sectional survey to determine the perception of people in British Columbia, Canada, toward liver transplantation in patients with liver disease due to alcohol who have not demonstrated the capacity to remain abstinent from alcohol for 6 months. A total of 304 patient questionnaires were completed, and 83.1% agreed with a period of abstinence of 6 months. In those patients who were unlikely to survive 6 months without a transplant, 34.1% of respondents agreed with, 44.1% did not agree with, and 21.4% were neutral about, early transplantation; 42.8% would have less trust in the process of transplantation if a period of abstinence was not maintained, but relaxing the requirement for an abstinence period would not have an impact on the majority's decision to donate organs. Only 30.5% would support abandoning the abstinence criteria. Conclusion: Among patients followed at general gastroenterology, medicine, or transplant clinics, there is a willingness to relax the criteria in selected patients unlikely to survive without a transplant, although a general consensus remains in support of the existing 6‐month alcohol abstinence rule. A larger scale survey of all provinces in Canada would be required to assess support for such a change in policy.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".