Outcomes of patients with cystic fibrosis undergoing lung transplantation with and without cystic fibrosis‐associated liver cirrhosis*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nash EF, Volling C, Gutierrez CA, Tullis E, Coonar A, McRae K, Keshavjee S, Singer LG, Durie PR, Chaparro C. Outcomes of patients with cystic fibrosis undergoing lung transplantation with and without cystic fibrosis‐associated liver cirrhosis. Clin Transplant 2012: 26: 34–41. © 2011 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Abstract: People with severe cystic fibrosis (CF) lung disease with co‐existent CF‐associated liver disease (CFLD) are often excluded from consideration of sole lung transplantation, largely because of the concerns that they will subsequently develop hepatic decompensation. This retrospective cohort study aimed at determining whether patients with severe cirrhosis caused by CFLD have any differences in perioperative and relevant post‐transplant outcomes compared to CF patients without CFLD when undergoing sole lung transplantation. Six patients with CFLD were matched with 18 CF patients without CFLD undergoing sole lung transplant at the same institution. There were no differences in total operative time or intra‐operative requirements for cardiopulmonary bypass or blood products. Over a period of five yr post‐transplant, no differences were observed between the two groups in body mass index, six‐min walk, lung function, and survival. None of the CFLD subjects developed variceal bleeding; however, one developed hepatocellular and renal failure at four yr post‐transplant and is being assessed for liver–kidney transplant. One additional patient with CFLD required repeat lung transplantation for bronchiolitis obliterans syndrome. This study provides evidence that CF patients with liver cirrhosis caused by CFLD can safely be considered for sole lung transplantation provided there is no evidence of significant hepatocellular dysfunction with decompensated cirrhosis or hepatic synthetic failure.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".