MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

401.5: Lung uDCD protocol refinement in partnership with clinical, regulatory, and community stakeholders in New York City.

2024· article· en· W4402799625 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Stephen P. Wall, Jingzhi Xu, Carolyn N. Sidoti, Kenya Velez, Luis F. Angel, Stephanie H. Chang, Justin Chan, Brendan Parent, Macey L. Levan, Robert A. Montgomery

Bibliographic record

VenueTransplantation · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeneral partnershipProtocol (science)Public administrationMedicinePolitical scienceAlternative medicinePathologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: University of Toronto investigators evaluated a lung uDCD protocol that uses positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) and oxygen to preserve lungs noninvasively ~3 hours after death, but transplant yield after EVLP was 36% in part because organ donation authorization was required before in-situ preservation. Our research suggests the US public might permit noninvasive preservation without requiring prior permission to increase transplant yield. The objective was to refine the Toronto lung uDCD protocol for implementation in NYC. Method: This action research study occurred from July 2022 to March 2024 with a consortium of NYU Langone Health and organ procurement organization (OPO) administrative leaders and clinical staff and community stakeholders from secular and religious organizations. Primary documents (meeting minutes, field notes) were systematically amassed and summarized into an action research matrix. Qualitative analysis of summary text was done with an iterative coding scheme based on the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Science. Stakeholder engagement occurred until thematic saturation was achieved. Results: We held 17 focus groups with 85 participants, 2 clinical simulations with 18 participants, 10 town halls with community and religious organizations, 10 meetings with hospital and OPO leaders, and 30 informal communications totaling 69 encounters. Themes emerged representing individual perception, implementation climate, engagement, organizational capacity, and readiness for implementation. Barriers voiced included: 1) ethical/legal concerns from initiating preservation without requiring permission; 2) compressed time required to initiate preservation, converse with authorized decision-makers, and conduct clinical screening; 3) difficulty interpreting eligibility criteria; and 4) concerns about public acceptance. The lung uDCD protocol (Fig. 1) was refined to address barriers. After termination of resuscitation (TOR), bag-valve devices will remain attached to comply with the New York Anatomical Gift Act clause to not withdraw care until organ donation eligibility is ascertained. Additional hospital staff will serve as delegates of the OPO to provide 24/7 coverage to communicate with families about noninvasive lung preservation and request donation authorization. Clinical screening tests will occur rapidly within hospitals with courier services for offsite testing. A lung preservation specialist will be on call 24/7 for eligibility queries. An ethics board will review all case notes to determine ethical acceptability. Outcomes will be shared with an independent data and safety monitoring board to determine whether the program can continue. Conclusion: The refined protocol initiates lung preservation without permission with strict regulatory oversight for up to 3 hours after death, is compliant with the US opt-in organ donation system, and is likely to be accepted by stakeholders who participated in its refinement. Figure 1: Refined Lung uDCD ProtocolU.S. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Grant Number R61HL156890. We thank wholeheartedly our collaborator, Marcelo Cypel MD MSc FACS FRCSC, who shared the University Health Network of Toronto Lung uDCD Protocol with our study team. Dr. Cypel will be included in the authorship for upcoming papers and will participate in the clinical safety and ethical evaluation of the refined protocol starting in July, 2024.

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)0.221
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.133
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.221
Threshold uncertainty score0.960

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2210.133
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0080.003
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0050.009
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0380.006

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 head0.162
GPT teacher head0.403
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransplantationSame topicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) ResearchFrench-language works237,207