MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3184601717 · doi:10.1097/txd.0000000000001181

Anonymous Living Liver Donation: Literature Review and Case Series Report

2021· review· en· W3184601717 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sarah Shan, Paola A. Vargas, Jakob A. Durden, Tara Seay, Tessa Williams, Emily Lyster, Anita Sites, Patrick G. Northup, Shawn J. Pelletier, José Oberholzer, Curtis K. Argo, Nicolás Goldaracena

Bibliographic record

VenueTransplantation Direct · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrgan Transplantation Techniques and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEconomic shortageDonationMedicineDemographicsAltruism (biology)Protocol (science)Family medicineSocial psychologyPsychologyDemographyPolitical scienceLawSociologyAlternative medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0110.011
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0040.002
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.304 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations11
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransplantation DirectSame topicOrgan Transplantation Techniques and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207