Anonymous Living Liver Donation: Literature Review and Case Series Report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Anonymous living liver donations (ALLDs) raise ethical concerns regarding the donors' motivations. Thus, ALLDs are not as widely accepted as directed donations from friends and family. Literature on ALLDs is limited. Understanding this particular group of individuals is crucial, as they could further help mitigate the shortage of liver grafts worldwide. METHODS: A literature review was performed to identify current definitions, ethical considerations, different approaches, and barriers to ALLD worldwide. Furthermore, we present our current experience after the establishment of a protocol to enable an ALLD program in our center and surveyed potential donors to better understand their motives throughout the process. RESULTS: Literature regarding ALLD is scarce. Canada leads the experience with the majority of case reports published to date. Survey-based evaluation of this unique group of individuals reflects the selflessness nature of anonymous living donors and shows that most of them experience the donation as a positive and life-changing event. In our experience, 41 individuals initiated the process of ALLD during the study period. Most were lost to follow-up or deemed ineligible. Five candidates fully completed the donation process and successfully underwent living liver donation. Given that 2 candidates have a follow-up period <3 mo from donation, we have only included data on the first 3 donors in this analysis. Eight individuals (19.5%) responded to the survey with respondents sharing similar reasons for initiating ALLD but varied and multifactorial reasons for terminating. CONCLUSIONS: Different institutional protocols can be used to accomplish ALLD, including the one utilized by our institution. Adopting policies to allow for ALLDs and reducing modifiable factors that contribute to ending donation has the potential to increase grafts and decrease wait times.Supplemental Visual Abstract: http://links.lww.com/TP/C251.
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) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".