Public health implications of pig-to-human xenotransplantation at scale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The current global shortage of organs from human donors has resulted in long wait lists and increasing mortality among patients with end-stage organ failure. Pig-to-human xenotransplantation has been touted as a solution to this problem. However, significant infectious diseases and public health considerations exist with such a technological advancement. RECENT FINDINGS: Infectious diseases hazards with public health implications of pig-to-human xenotransplantation may be categorized taxonomically, according to temporality of potential exposure and/or reactivation, or according to anthroponotic versus zoonotic transmission. Additionally, the potential for escalating proportions of immunosuppression-at-scale in the context of the theoretically less-constrained resource of xenografts warrants particular consideration given that impacts will be differentially borne by those most affected by reactivating infections including but not limited to tuberculosis (TB), hepatitis B (HBV), and strongyloidiasis. TB, HBV, and strongyloidiasis all represent chronic infections with potential for reactivation under circumstances of immunosuppression - owing to either allograft or xenograft transplantation - that differentially impact those living in rural poverty globally, and those with risk factors for acquisition related to crowding, poor sanitation, undernutrition, and economic disenfranchisement. Chagas disease and leishmaniasis portend similar possibility of reactivation and differentially affect those residing in the global South. SUMMARY: We herein situate the public health implications of xenotransplantation at scale within the broader landscape of infectious diseases hazards related to the technology, and propose a health equity and human rights based framework for global risk assessment.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".