Lung transplantation: donor and recipient critical care aspects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The purpose of this paper is to highlight new developments in donor and recipient lung transplant issues for the critical care physician. RECENT FINDINGS: A shortage of suitable lung donors has led to the use of extended donors and the development of novel techniques such as live-donor lung transplantation and the use of non-heart-beating donors. The increased experience and success with lung transplantation has also resulted in the extension of this therapy to patients previously considered unsuitable for transplantation. Postoperative outcomes can be affected by many of these recent donor and recipient changes. Improved preservation solutions and techniques to reduce reperfusion injury may be able to ameliorate some of the new perioperative graft dysfunction, but morbidity is still potentially significant, and extraordinary interventions such as extracorporeal membrane oxygenation may be required in selected cases. SUMMARY: Patients undergoing lung transplantation continue to be very challenging in the intensive care unit. A multidisciplinary approach to care, and early recognition of serious problems, will help improve outcomes.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 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".