An Integrative Review on Exploring Organ Donation After Death by Circulatory Criteria in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Rising discrepancies between supply and demand of lifesaving organs necessitates considering advancements to improve the health outcomes of Canadians. There is an increased use of organs after death by circulatory criteria, however the evolution of this treatment should be explored to continue to advance practices and save lives. Objective: To summarize the literature on the evolution and use of organ donation after death by circulatory criteria in Canada, to highlight how this donation modality may support future advancements. Methods: A search of electronic databases for any date until June 1st, 2024, was performed. Additional searches of grey literature using Google Scholar and the snowball technique were performed. Applicable documents underwent a multi-phase screening process, and data were extracted, analyzed, and evaluated. Results: There were 793 documents located, and 50 were included in this review. Three main categories emerged among the documents that described the evolution of guidelines for death by circulatory criteria organ donation, experiences with program development and delivery for death by circulatory criteria organ donation and Canadian perspectives of this donation modality. Discussion: Canada has made strides in circulatory criteria organ donation practices through consensus meetings and discussions on key topics, yet variations in practice exist across the country that warrant further investigation when considering future advancements. Conclusion: While national efforts have advanced practices, ongoing variations across programs highlighted the need for continued evaluation, education and harmonization to maximize the life-saving potential of organ donation practices.
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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.025 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".