MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392967662 · doi:10.1097/tp.0000000000004983

Developing Guidance for Donor Intervention Randomized Controlled Trials: Initial Discussions From the Canada-United Kingdom 2022 Workshop

2024· article· en· W4392967662 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Marat Slessarev, Katie Bain, John Basmaji, Tom Blydt‐Hansen, Jessie Cooper, Frédérick D’Aragon, Lorenzo Del Sorbo, Amy Evans, Anthony Gordon, Gail Klein, Maureen O. Meade, Nicholas A. Murphy, Helen Thomas, Matthew J. Weiss, Charles Weijer, Daniel Harvey

Bibliographic record

VenueTransplantation · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrgan Donation and Transplantation
Canadian institutionsHôpital de l'Enfant-JésusUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health NetworkSunnybrook Health Science CentreCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de SherbrookeTranslational Research in OncologyTrillium Therapeutics (Canada)University of British ColumbiaMcMaster UniversityUniversité de SherbrookeWestern University
FundersCanadian Donation and Transplantation Research Program
KeywordsIntervention (counseling)MedicineTransplantationPsychological interventionRandomized controlled trialDonationOrgan donationHealth careResearch ethicsClinical trialFamily medicineNursingPolitical scienceSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Donor interventions, including medications, protocols, and medical devices administered to donors, can enhance transplantable organ quality and quantity and maximize transplantation success. However, there is paucity of high-quality evidence about their effectiveness, in part because of ethical, practical, and regulatory challenges, and lack of guidance about conduct of donor intervention randomized controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS: With the vision to develop authoritative guidance for conduct of donor intervention RCTs, we convened a workshop of Canadian-United Kingdom experts in organ donation and transplantation ethics, research, and policy to identify stakeholders, explore unique challenges, and develop research agenda to inform future work in this promising field. RESULTS: Donor intervention trials should consider perspectives of broad group of stakeholders including donors, transplant recipients, and their families; researchers in donation and transplantation; research ethics boards; and healthcare providers and administrators involved in donation and transplantation. Unique challenges include (1) research ethics (living versus deceased status of the donor at the time of intervention, intervention versus outcomes assessment in different individuals, harm-benefit analysis in donors versus recipients, consent, and impact on research bystanders); (2) outcome data standardization and linkage; and (3) regulatory and governance considerations. CONCLUSIONS: Donor intervention RCTs hold potential to benefit organ transplantation outcomes but face unique research ethics, outcome data, and regulatory challenges. By developing research agenda to address these challenges, our workshop was an important first step toward developing Canada-United Kingdom guidance for donor intervention RCTs that are poised to improve the quality and availability of transplantable organs.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.492
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.507
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.846
Threshold uncertainty score0.981

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.4920.507
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.008
Bibliometrics0.0060.004
Science and technology studies0.0130.015
Scholarly communication0.0200.008
Open science0.0190.018
Research integrity0.0740.053
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.073
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.301 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainMethods
GenreMethods

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

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransplantationSame topicOrgan Donation and TransplantationFrench-language works237,207