305.6: Global survey on knowledge and comfort gaps in the acceptance of deceased donors.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
TTS Access to Transplantation working group and the participating transplantation societies. Introduction: The Global Observatory on Donation and Transplantation (GODT) reported that <10% of the global needs are fulfilled. Our goal was to assess the knowledge and comfort gaps in the acceptance of deceased donors (DD). Methods: We performed a survey from May 2022 to March 2023, including Tx physicians and surgeons. Responders were divided into five groups as per the mean DD rate per million population (PMP) from years 2016-2021 (2020 was excluded because of the COVID-19 pandemic): 1) No DD reported, or no data provided to GODT; 2) <10; 3) 10-19.9; 4) 20-29.9; 5) 30 DD PMP. We used ANOVA (linear trend) to compare the median gap (desired minus current) for knowledge or comfort. As an example, I understand the benefits of accepting organs from high social risk donors, but I feel uncomfortable accepting those organs. Results: We found significant gaps in both knowledge and comfort regarding the acceptance of DD, as follows: Donors with a history of high-risk behaviour (Figure 1), positive blood cultures and appropriate treatment (Figure 2), as well as in donors with isolated anti-HBc Ab+. Significant gaps only in knowledge were the following: excessive cigarette smoking, excessive alcohol use, positive COVID-19 PCR; HCV+, HIV+, positive serology for Chagas, multidrug-resistant bacterial infection, primary brain malignancies, pre-Tx HLA testing for immunological risk stratification, crossmatch testing methods, role of cfDNA in non-invasive diagnosis of rejection, surveillance of DSA post-Tx. No differences in knowledge and comfort were observed in the following: HBs Ag+, <5-year history of other malignancies, impact of non-HLA Ab on transplant outcomes, and unacceptable donor HLA antigens. Significant differences across countries were seen mainly in those with lower DD rates. Conclusion: This global survey suggests that there are knowledge and comfort gaps related to the acceptance of DD. It suggests that educational activities should address the gaps with the goal of increasing the access to organ Tx globally.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".