Ex situ heart perfusion for optimization of pediatric donor organ utilization: Attitudes and perceptions
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Children with heart failure have the highest mortality while awaiting transplantation. Ex situ heart perfusion (ESHP), a method for continuous perfusion of the donor heart, has the potential to improve access to transplant by increasing travel distance between donor and recipient. An adult ESHP device is currently available, but as of yet there is no pediatric device. The aim of this study was to evaluate current knowledge of ESHP among pediatric heart transplant practitioners, define potential barriers, and identify uses of this novel technology. METHODS: An electronic survey was developed to assess perspectives of international pediatric heart transplant stakeholders (n = 68) on ESHP. Select questions were analyzed to evaluate for associations between groups of respondents and patterns of response. RESULTS: Most respondents were familiar but <10% had clinically utilized ESHP. There was optimism that ESHP could decrease waitlist mortality. Respondents were concerned about potential device malfunction and lack of long-term outcomes. There were no differences found in terms of ESHP familiarity among age groups, practitioner center volume, country of work, or discipline. CONCLUSIONS: ESHP has the potential to expand the pediatric heart donor pool and decrease waitlist mortality. More education on outcomes and risks/benefits is needed in order to promote widespread adoption.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it