The hidden emotional costs of giving life: preserving donors’ mental health and quality of life after living kidney donation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Kidney living donation remains the best treatment available for kidney failure. Most living donors report positive personal outcomes, such as enhanced life satisfaction and personal growth. However, mental health challenges have also been documented. The study by Tahir, Aftab and Nabi (J Nephrol https://doi.org/10.1007/s40620-025-02217-5 , 2025) call the attention to a small subset of living donors who may experience significant depression symptoms and occasionally suicidal ideation after donation, particularly when the recipient dies or suffers severe graft failure with a return to dialysis. As observed in the previous studies, only donors whose recipients experienced negative outcomes reported mood alterations or life dissatisfaction (Menjivar et al., Transpl Int 31(12):1332-1344, 2018). These rare post-donation risk scenarios justify a careful mental evaluation to identify psychological vulnerabilities or a history of difficulties in managing and coping with stressful situations. These adverse outcomes appear more likely in donors with pre-donation physical and/or psychological vulnerabilities, in those with a complicated surgical recovery after donation, and in cases where recipients experience poor physical or psychological outcomes. Moreover, cases of graft failure or recipient death might significantly increase donor's likelihood of depression and anxiety, Despite the generally low incidence of psychosocial problems after donation, there have been calls for a more structured and routine follow-up assessment to further mitigate risks and ensure equitable mental health safety for all kidney donors.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".