Lung transplant recipient attitudes and beliefs on accepting an organ that is positive for hepatitis C virus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Little is known about patient perceptions regarding HCV+ organ use in non-HCV-infected recipients. This study examined factors influencing the decision to accept HCV+ organs and the resulting impacts. METHODS: Adult lung transplant (LT) patients or candidates who had consented to receive an HCV+ organ completed a survey including multiple choice, a five-point Likert scale, and free-text answers. A total of 67 LT recipients or candidates who had consented to receive HCV+ organs were enrolled, of which 21/67 (31%) received HCV+ lungs, 39 (58%) HCV- lungs, and seven (10%) were still waiting. RESULTS: Pre-transplant, 50/67 (75%) patients felt it was either "completely safe" or "very safe" to accept an HCV+ organ. Although 22/67 (33%) said they never or rarely took risks, they still made the decision to accept an HCV+ organ. Common reported reasons were desperation, perception of having "no choice," and increasing symptom severity. In the subset of patients that were transplanted with an HCV+ organ (n = 21), only 12.5% reported second thoughts about accepting. Post-transplant, the majority (87.5%) never felt any anxiety about HCV and most (83%) reported no impact from HCV. Perception of treatment tolerability and ease was highly favorable. CONCLUSION: Use of HCV+ organs demonstrated minimal detrimental perceived impacts on lung transplant patients. Patients generally found the experience to be very positive.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".