MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3156685002 · doi:10.5935/0103-507x.20210001

Brazilian guidelines for the management of brain-dead potential organ donors. The task force of the Associação de Medicina Intensiva Brasileira, Associação Brasileira de Transplantes de Órgãos, Brazilian Research in Critical Care Network, and the General Coordination of the National Transplant System

2021· article· en· W3156685002 on OpenAlexaff
Glauco Adrieno Westphal, Caroline Cabral Robinson, Alexandre Biasi Cavalcanti, Anderson Ricardo Roman Gonçalves, Cassiano Teixeira, Cinara Stein, Cristiano Augusto Franke, Daiana Barbosa da Silva, Daniela Ferreira Salomão Pontes, Diego Silva Leite Nunes, Edson Abdala, Felipe Dal‐Pizzol, Fernando A. Bozza, Flávia Ribeiro Machado, Joel de Andrade, Luciane Nascimento Cruz, Luciano César Pontes Azevedo, Miriam Machado, Régis Goulart Rosa, Roberto Ceratti Manfro, Rosana Reis Nothen, Suzana Margareth Lobo, Tatiana Helena Rech, Thiago Lisboa, Verônica Colpani, Maicon Falavigna

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Care Science · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrgan Donation and Transplantation
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGrading (engineering)Intensive care medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To contribute to updating the recommendations for brain-dead potential organ donor management. METHODS: A group of 27 experts, including intensivists, transplant coordinators, transplant surgeons, and epidemiologists, answered questions related to the following topics were divided into mechanical ventilation, hemodynamics, endocrine-metabolic management, infection, body temperature, blood transfusion, and checklists use. The outcomes considered were cardiac arrests, number of organs removed or transplanted as well as function / survival of transplanted organs. The quality of evidence of the recommendations was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system to classify the recommendations. RESULTS: A total of 19 recommendations were drawn from the expert panel. Of these, 7 were classified as strong, 11 as weak and 1 was considered a good clinical practice. CONCLUSION: Despite the agreement among panel members on most recommendations, the grade of recommendation was mostly weak.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.036
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.096
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.086
Threshold uncertainty score0.191

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0360.096
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.007
Bibliometrics0.0110.006
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0060.002
Research integrity0.0070.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.414
Teacher spread0.345 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical Care ScienceSame topicOrgan Donation and TransplantationFrench-language works237,207