Family perspectives of ex situ heart perfusion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pediatric patients awaiting a heart transplant have high waitlist mortality. Several strategies have been utilized to decrease waiting times, but a mortality risk still exists. New medical technologies may improve waiting times and associated mortality. Ex situ heart perfusion (ESHP) is one such technology, which can decrease the impact of cold ischemia on the donor heart and allow for a longer out-of-body time. Adoption of such technology in pediatric heart transplantation will require support from end users, including patient and families. The aim of this qualitative study was to report the perspectives of families with experience related to pediatric HTx toward ESHP. METHODS: Semistructured interviews were conducted with 12 parents or guardians of children who were awaiting or received heart transplantation. Interviews were transcribed, and data were analyzed using qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: Participants expressed varied awareness and knowledge of ESHP. Independent of their understanding of ESHP, all purported that ESHP was an excellent idea and that this technology should be implemented in the pediatric population. They did not identify fundamentally different ethical issues or concerns for ESHP being used relative to other medical technologies. Overall, most participants described consent processes for ESHP should be like any other procedure. All agreed that the surgeon should continue to describe the overall health of the donor heart, provide their medical recommendations, and allow families to have the final say. CONCLUSIONS: The concepts described by the parents and guardians are important in moving this novel technology forward. This information will serve the basis for knowledge translation that will provide educational resources to broaden the understanding and reach of ESHP.
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 | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".