The experiences of parents and caregiver(s) whose child received an organ from a living anonymous liver donor
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Anonymous living donor transplantation is a potential strategy to address the shortage of available organs for transplant. A living anonymous donor (LAD) is a donor with no biological connection and whose identity is unknown to the recipient. This study captured the lived experiences of pediatric liver transplant recipient families whose child received an organ from a LAD. METHODS: Qualitative data collection and analysis were guided by a theoretical framework of phenomenology. Data analysis highlighted themes through an inductive process of reviewing transcript paragraphs to code for significant statements that represented key concepts and captured depth of experience. RESULTS: A total of nine interviews were conducted with 10 participants. Data analysis yielded themes of emotional turbulence through their transplant journey. Pre-transplant experiences were characterized by feelings of helplessness and desperation. Receiving a LAD transplant prompted shock, relief, and acceptance of the donation. Post-transplant experiences were characterized by altered life-perspectives and varied levels of connectedness to the donor, marked by gratitude and concern for donor well-being. CONCLUSION: Anonymous donation in liver transplantation is perceived by recipient families as a remarkable gift and a viable donor option. Our preliminary findings can be used to inform strategy development regarding future delivery of care.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".