MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1983688860 · doi:10.1164/rccm.200207-670so

Ischemia–Reperfusion–induced Lung Injury

2003· review· en· W1983688860 on OpenAlexaff
Marc de Perrot, Mingyao Liu, Thomas K. Waddell, Shaf Keshavjee

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine · 2003
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTransplantation: Methods and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsToronto General HospitalUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLung transplantationLungIschemiaHypoxemiaReperfusion injuryTransplantationComplicationPulmonary edemaClinical trialAnesthesiaSurgeryCardiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ischemia-reperfusion-induced lung injury is characterized by nonspecific alveolar damage, lung edema, and hypoxemia occurring within 72 hours after lung transplantation. The most severe form may lead to primary graft failure and remains a significant cause of morbidity and mortality after lung transplantation. Over the past decade, better understanding of the mechanisms of ischemia-reperfusion injury, improvements in the technique of lung preservation, and the development of a new preservation solution specifically for the lung have been associated with a reduction in the incidence of primary graft failure from approximately 30 to 15% or less. Several strategies have also been introduced into clinical practice for the prevention and treatment of ischemia-reperfusion-induced lung injury with various degrees of success. However, only three randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trials on ischemia-reperfusion-induced lung injury have been reported in the literature. In the future, the development of new agents and their application in prospective clinical trials are to be expected to prevent the occurrence of this potentially devastating complication and to further improve the success of lung transplantation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.058
GPT teacher head0.438
Teacher spread0.380 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations977
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care MedicineSame topicTransplantation: Methods and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207