Public attitudes toward vascularized composite allograft donation: a literature review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Manraj Kaur1, Achilleas Thoma2 1School of Rehabilitation Science, Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; 2Department of Surgery, Division of Plastic Surgery, Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, CanadaCorrespondence: Manraj KaurSchool of Rehabilitation Science, Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, 3N27 – 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, Ontario L8S 4L8, CanadaTel +1 905 525 9140 ext 26410Email kaurmn@mcmaster.caAbstract: Vascularized composite allotransplantation (VCA) is the transplantation of anatomical or functional structures composed of multiple types of tissues. The technical advancement of solid organ transplantation and replantation instigated the development of the skills required for successful VCA several years ago; however, the recent advancements in immunosuppression therapy have renewed the interest in this field. As VCAs are primarily life-enhancing procedures, the perception and attitudes of the general public (i.e. potential donors and candidates) and the health care professionals is extremely relevant in terms of health policy and funding decision allocations, availability of donor tissue and ethical and legal implications. In this article, we review the current evidence to assess the sociocultural and demographic factors that influence the growth and success of VCA procedures.Keywords: alotransplantation, public attitudes, vascularized composite allograft, reconstruction, hand transplant, facial transplant
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 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".