The National Organ Donation and Transplantation Program in Greece: Gap Analysis and Recommendations for Change
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Greece has fallen far behind many comparable European countries in the field of organ donation and transplantation and has made little progress over the past decade. Despite efforts to improve its organ donation and transplantation program, systemic problems persist. In 2019, the Onassis Foundation commissioned a report to be prepared by the London School of Economics and Political Science that focused on the state of the Greek organ donation and transplantation program and proposed recommendations for its improvement. In this paper, we present our analysis of the Greek organ donation and transplantation program together with an overview of our specific recommendations. The analysis of the Greek program was undertaken in an iterative manner using a conceptual framework of best practices developed specifically for this project. Our findings were further developed via an iterative process with information provided by key Greek stakeholders and comparisons with case studies that featured successful donation and transplantation programs in Croatia, Italy, Portugal, Spain, and the United Kingdom. Because of their overall complexity, we used a systems-level approach to generate comprehensive and far-reaching recommendations to address the difficulties currently experienced by the Greek organ donation and transplantation program.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".