The American Society of Transplant Surgeons Consensus Statement on Normothermic Regional Perfusion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
On June 3, 2023, the American Society of Transplant Surgeons convened a meeting in San Diego, California to (1) develop a consensus statement with supporting data on the ethical tenets of thoracoabdominal normothermic regional perfusion (NRP) and abdominal NRP; (2) provide guidelines for the standards of practice that should govern thoracoabdominal NRP and abdominal NRP; and (3) develop and implement a central database for the collection of NRP donor and recipient data in the United States. National and international leaders in the fields of neuroscience, transplantation, critical care, NRP, Organ Procurement Organizations, transplant centers, and donor families participated. The conference was designed to focus on the controversial issues of neurological flow and function in donation after circulatory death donors during NRP and propose technical standards necessary to ensure that this procedure is performed safely and effectively. This article discusses major topics and conclusions addressed at the meeting.
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 | 0.062 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.017 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
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".