Reinforcing Global Oversight of Organ Transplantation: Activity and Outcome Monitoring Through the Development of Registries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Establishing transparency and oversight of organ transplantation by regulatory agencies is of paramount importance to assure ethical, legal, and clinically robust transplantation practices. Registries reporting activity and outcome data of the donor and recipient, including donor source (living or deceased), must be developed for each transplant and should be a mandatory requirement to achieve accreditation to perform transplant surgeries. Collected data for the living organ donor must include the nationality, the nature of their relationship with the recipient, and the complications encountered by living donors that result in prolonged morbidity or mortality. Long-term patient and graft survival must be reported for the recipient with the underlying reasons for mortality or graft loss. To retain the authorization to perform organ transplantation, a facility must ensure that it reports this required information regarding every organ 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 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 | 0.263 | 0.173 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".