A qualitative study exploring the process of postmortem brain tissue donation after suicide
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Access to postmortem brain tissue can be valuable in refining knowledge on the pathophysiology and genetics of neuropsychiatric disorders. Obtaining postmortem consent for the donation 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. This is a qualitative study with in-depth interviews with forty-one people that were asked to consider brain donation-32 who had consented to donation and 9 who refused it. Data collection and analyses were carried out according to grounded theory. Five key themes emerged from data analysis: the context of the families, 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. 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 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 | 0.024 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".