Incidence and prevalence of diabetes mellitus in patients with cystic fibrosis undergoing lung transplantation before and after lung transplantation*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cystic fibrosis (CF) related diabetes mellitus (DM) occurs in 15% of adult pancreatic insufficient CF patients. Lung transplantation is a treatment option for end-stage CF. We hypothesized that the prevalence of DM increases after lung transplantation. The study population included adult patients undergoing lung transplantation from March 1988 to March 2002 for end-stage CF at the University of Toronto. Demographic data, exocrine pancreatic function, presence of DM before and after transplant, as well as timing of its development after transplant were collected. Eighty-six patients met the study criteria; 77 of 86 (89.5%) of patients were pancreatic insufficient and were further analyzed. Median follow-up post-transplant was 3.3 yr (interquartile range: 1.2-7.2). Their mean age was 29.7 +/- 8.1 yr and 46 of 77 (59.7%) were male. The prevalence of DM increased from 22 of 77 (28.6%) before transplant to 38 of 77 (49.4%) after transplant (p = 0.008). The median time of DM development after transplant was 80 d (range: 13-4352). Sixteen of 55 (29.1%) of pancreatic insufficient patients who were non-diabetic prior to transplant, developed DM after transplant. DM is common in CF patients undergoing lung transplantation and the prevalence increases after transplant.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".