Barriers Preventing Liver Transplantation in Canadians with HIV Infection – Perceptions of HIV Specialists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Liver transplantation is a life-saving procedure with demonstrated utility. There are accumulating data indicating that this procedure is helpful in HIV-infected patients as well. Liver transplantation is currently largely unavailable to those living with HIV in Canada. Understanding the obstacles to this procedure is the first step to increasing access. Between August 2005 and November 2005, HIV physicians, one from each Canadian HIV Trials Network site, were asked to complete a quantitative questionnaire on adult liver transplant access and need. Forty-six per cent (16 of 35) of sites responded. A median 20% of the nearly 12,700 HIV patients followed at these sites had concurrent liver disease (20% caused by hepatitis C virus, 5% caused by hepatitis B virus and 5% were alcohol-related). On average, two patients per site were thought to be appropriate candidates for liver transplant evaluation. Eighty per cent of respondents anticipated increased need for liver transplantation over the next five years. Organ supply was universally identified as the chief obstacle to transplantation in patients with HIV. Other key issues included risk of hepatitis C virus reinfection and transplant surgical team willingness. Based on these data, it is believed that these issues should be the focus of efforts designed to increase access to transplantation in Canadians with end-stage liver disease and concurrent HIV.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".