MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2956939525 · doi:10.1093/hsw/hlz012

The Psychosocial Evaluation Is an Essential Part of the Pretransplant Workup for Patients with End-Stage Renal Disease: A Social Worker’s Perspective

2019· article· en· W2956939525 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth & Social Work · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRenal Transplantation Outcomes and Treatments
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychosocialMedicineIntensive care medicineEnd stage renal diseaseSocial workDiseaseFamily medicinePsychiatryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

On the surface, it is common to assume that most patients with end-stage renal disease will get listed for a kidney transplant. Unfortunately, for many patients, this is not the case. The process of listing a patient for a transplant requires a rigorous medical examination and a mandatory psychosocial screening assessment. Clinical social workers are often asked why this assessment is important, what it accomplishes, and how it affects a patient’s ability to get listed. This column argues that the required psychosocial assessment is a key element in helping to determine whether a patient should be listed on the deceased donor transplant list. This assessment is crucial in determining a patient’s psychosocial suitability for a transplant, which ultimately ensures that this scarce resource is well used; it also tries to ensure the best possible outcomes for patients. Social workers have a dual role during this assessment: one to the transplanted...

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.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.095
Threshold uncertainty score0.938

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.362
Teacher spread0.333 · 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