Impact of Lung Transplant Operation on Bronchiolitis Obliterans Syndrome in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous studies suggest that bilateral (BLT) compared with single lung transplantation (SLT) for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) results in improved long-term survival. The effect of transplant operation on bronchiolitis obliterans syndrome (BOS) is unknown. A retrospective study of all lung transplant recipients with pre-transplant diagnoses of COPD at the University of Toronto and at Duke University was performed. Data collected were age, gender, date and type of transplant, acute rejection, survival, presence and time of BOS. 221 (bilateral n = 101, single n = 120) patients met our criteria. Patients with BLT were younger (53.0 vs. 55.3 years; p = 0.034), more likely to be male (56.3% vs. 42.4%; p = 0.039) and more likely to be transplanted at the University of Toronto (79.6% vs. 16.1%; p < 0.001). Freedom from BOS was similar at 1 year post-transplant. However, BLT recipients were more commonly free from BOS 3 years (57.4% vs. 50.7%) and 5 years (44.5% vs. 17.9%) post-transplant (p = 0.024). Survival of BLT was better than SLT recipients at 3 and 5 years post-transplant (BLT vs. SLT: 67.5% vs. 61.1% and 60.7% vs. 34.1%, respectively; p = 0.018). Similar trends on survival were observed after development of BOS. BLT results in lower rates of BOS in patients with COPD that are eligible for both SLT and BLT.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".