Baseline Ethical Principles and a Framework for Evaluation of Policies: Recommendations From an International Consensus Forum
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To maintain public trust and integrity in organ and tissue donation and transplantation (OTDT), policymakers, governments, clinical leaders, and decision-makers must ensure that policies proposed to increase donation and transplant activity satisfy baseline ethical principles established by international agreement, declaration, and resolution. This article describes the output of the Baseline Ethical Domain group of an international forum designed to guide stakeholders in considering these aspects of their system. Methods: This Forum was initiated by Transplant Québec and co-hosted by the Canadian Donation and Transplantation Program partnered with multiple national and international donation and transplantation organizations. The domain working group members included administrative, clinical, and academic experts in deceased and living donation ethics and 2 Patient, Family, and Donor partners. Identification of internationally accepted baseline ethical principles was done after literature reviews performed by working group members, and a framework for consideration of existing or novel policies was completed over a series of virtual meetings from March to September 2021. Consensus on the framework was achieved by applying the nominal group technique. Recommendations: We used the 30 baseline ethical principles described in World Health Organization Guiding Principles, Declaration of Istanbul, and Barcelona Principles to generate an ethical framework-presented graphically as a spiral series of considerations-designed to assist decision makers in incorporating these ethical principles into practice and policy. We did not seek to determine what is ethical but instead described a method of evaluation for policy decisions. Conclusions: The proposed framework could be applied to new or existing OTDT policy decisions to facilitate the transformation of widely accepted ethical principles into practical evaluations. The framework includes adaptation for local contexts and could be applied broadly internationally.
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 | 0.703 | 0.558 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.026 | 0.019 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.043 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.051 | 0.053 |
| Open science | 0.020 | 0.030 |
| Research integrity | 0.032 | 0.039 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.005 |
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".