Sexual and gender minority relevant policies in Canadian and United States organ and tissue donation and transplantation systems: An opportunity to improve equity and safety
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Current policies in organ and tissue donation and transplantation (OTDT) systems in Canada and the United States unnecessarily restrict access to donation for sexual and gender minorities (SGMs) and pose safety risks to transplant recipients. We compare SGM-relevant policies between the Canadian and United States systems. Policy domains include the risk assessment of living and deceased organ and tissue donors, physical examination considerations, viral testing recommendations, and informed consent and communication. Identified gaps between current evidence and existing OTDT policies along with differences in SGM-relevant policies between systems, represent an opportunity for improvement. Specific recommendations for OTDT system policy revisions to achieve these goals include the development of behavior-based, gender-neutral risk assessment criteria, a reduction in current SGM no-sexual contact period requirements pending development of inclusive criteria, and destigmatization of sexual contact with people living with human immunodeficiency virus. OTDT systems should avoid rectal examinations to screen for evidence of receptive anal sex without consent and mandate routine nucleic acid amplification test screening for all donors. Transplant recipients must receive enhanced risk-to-benefit discussions regarding decisions to accept or decline an offer of an organ classified as increased risk. These recommendations will expand the donor pool, enhance equity for SGM people, and improve safety and outcomes for transplant recipients.
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 | 0.011 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".