The Effect of Recipient’s Age on Lung Transplant Outcome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Selection criteria for organ transplantation have evolved over time. Age has been revisited periodically. We studied the outcome of lung transplant adjusted by age in a single center transplant population. We matched the 42 lung graft recipients older than 60 years transplanted by July 1999 to younger controls by lung disease, transplant era within 2 years, type of transplant and gender. The female to male ratios were 17/25 among the older cohort (median age 61.6 years), and 15/27 (median age 51.9 years) among the matched younger. Survival analysis demonstrated a significant difference: at 1 year, 60% versus 86%, and at 5 years, 37% versus 57%, for older and younger, respectively, p=0.005. Excess annual mortality, calculated with the declining exponential approximation to life expectancy (DEALE), showed an older/younger ratio of 1.9. Eleven deaths occurred within 6 months among the older patients, 10 due to infection. After 6 months, there were 20 more deaths, 6 due to malignancy, 5 to Bronchiolitis Obliterans Syndrome (BOS), 3 to infection and 6 to other causes. Among the younger there were 6 deaths within 6 months and 12 more thereafter; among the latter, 8 were due to BOS. Despite stringent selection, lung transplant recipients older than 60 years show increased mortality even after adjusting for their expected higher age-related mortality.
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 | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".