<i>“At that moment, understanding the donation is crucial to make a decision”:</i> A qualitative study exploring the process of postmortem brain tissue donation after suicide
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background The direct examination of postmortem brain tissue can provide valuable help in refining knowledge on the pathophysiology and genetics of neuropsychiatric disorders. Obtaining postmortem consent for the donation of brain tissue after death by suicide can be difficult, as families may be overwhelmed by a violent and unexpected death. Examining the process of brain donation can inform on how the request can best be conducted, examining the existing barriers and enhancing communication, to the benefit of proxy donors. Methods This is a qualitative study, in which we employed in-depth interviews to investigate the donation process. Family members of decedents who were eligible for brain tissue donation were asked to consider the donation; irrespective of their decision, they were invited for an interview on the donation process at least 2 months after the suicide. Data collection and analyses were carried out according to a grounded theory framework, and collection, coding, and theorization occurred simultaneously. Findings Forty-one people participated in this study — 32 family members who had consented to donation and 9 who refused it. Five key themes emerged from our data analysis: the context of the families of potential donors, the invitation to talk to the research team, the experience with the request protocol, the participants’ assessment of the experience, and their participation in the study as an opportunity to heal. We arranged the main categories around 3 central stages of the experience described by participants: before the donation request, the request, and after the request. Conclusions The participants indicated that a brain donation request that is respectful and tactful can be made without adding to the family distress brought on by suicide and is viewed in a highly positive lens in the months following the event. Having an adequate understanding of tissue donation for research was crucial for satisfactory decision-making. Meeting with the donation team was considered a chance to talk to mental health professionals about suicide. Pondering brain donation was seen as an opportunity to transform the meaning of the death and invest it with a modicum of solace for being able to contribute to research.
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 | 0.027 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".