Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Respiratory failure remains the most common complication in the perioperative period after lung transplantation. Consequently it is important to develop an approach to diagnosis and the treatment of respiratory failure in this population. This review highlights the advances made in the understanding and treatment of lung transplant patients in the early postoperative phase. Owing to its relative importance, advances in the understanding and treatment of ischaemia-reperfusion injury are highlighted. RECENT FINDINGS: The causes of respiratory failure and the complications seen after transplantation are time dependent, with ischaemia-reperfusion, infection, technical problems and acute rejection being the most common in the early perioperative phase, and obliterative bronchiolitis, rejection, and infections secondary to bacteria, fungi, and viruses becoming more prevalent after 3 months. The advances in lung preservation and postoperative care may be overshadowed by an increase in the complexity of the recipients and the use of more marginal organs. An improved mechanistic understanding of ischaemia-reperfusion injury has translated into potential therapeutic targets. The development of prospective clinical trials, however, is hampered by a relatively small sample of patients and a significant degree of heterogeneity in the lung transplant population. SUMMARY: Many advances have been made in the understanding of ischaemia-reperfusion injury. Owing to the acute and long-term implications of this complication, interventions that reduce the risk of developing ischaemia-reperfusion need to be evaluated in prospective clinical trials.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".