Development and Assessment of a Deceased Donor Organ Recovery Workshop for Surgical Fellows
Bibliographic record
Abstract
• Deceased donor organ recovery is primarily performed by surgical fellows in Canada; however, there is no standardized formal training opportunity exists. • The deceased donor workshop improved fellows' confidence from 69% preworkshop to 85% immediately postworkshop and 91% after 6 months. • Significant confidence boost noted in evaluating donor organ quality and declining organs. • The deceased donor workshop can supplement current institutional fellowship training and standardize organ recovery across North America. To assess the impact of a deceased donor organ procurement training workshop on the transplant fellow's confidence and proficiency in organ recovery. This pilot workshop was designed to address the current gap in the transplant fellow's training in North America. Participants’ confidence and competence in deceased donor organ recovery were assessed pre- and postworkshop (immediate, 1- and 6-month) using a survey questionnaire. Participants’ responses were compared using T-test and Wilcoxon tests before and after the workshop. The hepatopancreatobiliary-transplant fellows from the University of Toronto participated in the workshop. Seven fellows participated, with 57% reported very limited exposure to deceased donor operations in the past year. Fellows’ confidence improved significantly immediately postworkshop (69% vs. 85%, p = <0.05), persisting at 1 month (86%, p = <0.05) and 6 months (91%, p = <0.05). Competence scores also demonstrated improvement postworkshop (88% vs. 78%, p = 0.3), remaining constant at 1 month (88%, p = 0.18), and further increasing at 6 months (92%, p = 0.19). This pilot study represents a notable step as the first workshop tailored for transplant fellows in Canada, demonstrating sustained improvement in both confidence and competence for deceased donor organ procurements. The study is limited by results from a single center and small sample size, impacting the generalizability of findings. However, the workshop addresses variability in transplant fellows' exposure and confidence levels, emphasizing the importance of structured training in organ procurement to enhance skills and readiness for real-time procedures.
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 | 0.018 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".