MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388784201 · doi:10.1016/j.lana.2023.100633

Liver transplantation in Latin America: reality and challenges

2023· review· en· W4388784201 on OpenAlexaff
David Aguirre-Villarreal, Maximiliano Servín-Rojas, Aczel Sánchez-Cedillo, Mariana Chávez‐Villa, Roberto Hernandez‐Alejandro, Juan Pablo Arab, Isaac Ruiz, Karla P. Avendaño-Castro, María A. Matamoros, Enrique Adames-Almengor, Javier Díaz‐Ferrer, Erika F. Rodríguez-Aguilar, Víctor M. Páez-Zayas, Alan G. Contreras, Mário Reis Álvares‐da‐Silva, Manuel Mendizábal, Cláudia P. Oliveira, Miquel Navasa, Ignacio García‐Juárez

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Lancet Regional Health - Americas · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLiver Disease and Transplantation
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalLondon Health Sciences CentreWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLatin AmericansReferralOrgan donationMedicineLiver transplantationDonationTransplantationHealth careWaiting listInclusion (mineral)Liver diseaseIntensive care medicinePolitical scienceFamily medicineSurgeryPsychologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Healthcare systems in Latin America are broadly heterogeneous, but all of them are burdened by a dramatic rise in liver disease. Some challenges that these countries face include an increase in patients requiring a transplant, insufficient rates of organ donation, delayed referral, and inequitable or suboptimal access to liver transplant programs and post-transplant care. This could be improved by expanding the donor pool through the implementation of education programs for citizens and referring physicians, as well as the inclusion of extended criteria donors, living donors and split liver transplantation. Addressing these shortcomings will require national shifts aimed at improving infrastructure, increasing awareness of organ donation, training medical personnel, and providing equitable access to care for all patients.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.947
Threshold uncertainty score0.744

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.419
GPT teacher head0.449
Teacher spread0.030 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations22
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Lancet Regional Health - AmericasSame topicLiver Disease and TransplantationFrench-language works237,207