Assessment of Canadian policies regarding liver transplant candidacy of people who use alcohol, tobacco, cannabis, and opiates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: When last assessed in 2013, all Canadian liver transplant programs required 6 months of abstinence from alcohol. New studies have questioned the validity of this policy. Moreover, with recreational cannabis now legal in Canada, more transplant candidates may use cannabis. Given these changes, our objective was to obtain an understanding of current Canadian practices regarding liver transplantation and candidates with addiction or alcohol, tobacco, cannabis, or opiate use. Methods: Electronic surveys were distributed to the medical directors of all seven adult liver transplant programs in Canada. Questions were based on either a Likert-scale ranking or free response. The complete data set was aggregated to provide a national perspective on this topic and ensure each individual program remained anonymous. Results: All seven programs responded to the survey. Of these programs, 43% always require 6-month abstinence from alcohol, 29% usually require it, and 14% sometimes require it. Formal alcohol rehabilitation is mandatory in two programs. The majority (57%) of programs never or rarely consider transplant for patients with acute alcoholic hepatitis; 29% require smoking cessation before consideration for transplant; and 71% felt that cannabis use is rarely or never a contraindication to liver transplantation. Conclusions: Significantly more Canadian programs now perform liver transplant for patients who have less than 6 months abstinence from alcohol, and alcoholic hepatitis is no longer an absolute contraindication in Canada. Policies on smoking and opiates are quite variable. Further study and discussion are critical for development of national policies to obtain equitable access to liver transplant for all.
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 | 0.007 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".