MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2046344035 · doi:10.1055/s-0030-1249111

Primary Graft Dysfunction: Definition, Risk Factors, Short- and Long-Term Outcomes

2010· review· en· W2046344035 on OpenAlexaff
James Lee, Jason D. Christie, Shaf Keshavjee

Bibliographic record

VenueSeminars in Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTransplantation: Methods and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsToronto General HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBronchiolitis obliteransLung transplantationIntensive care medicineLungLung functionIncidence (geometry)Grading (engineering)BronchiolitisTransplantationSurgeryInternal medicineRespiratory system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Primary graft dysfunction (PGD) is a form of early lung graft dysfunction that is a major cause of early morbidity and mortality following lung transplantation. Survivors of PGD have decreased long-term lung function and an increased risk of developing bronchiolitis obliterans syndrome (BOS), a manifestation of chronic graft dysfunction. This article reviews the current definition, contributing factors, and guidelines for grading clinical PGD, as well as controversies surrounding them. The current literature examining clinical risk factors for PGD is summarized, as are studies exploring molecular and biochemical markers for PGD prediction and severity. Studies examining the short- and long-term effects of PGD on lung transplant outcomes are reviewed. Lastly, we highlight the emerging concepts in lung transplantation that will potentially impact PGD incidence and 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 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)0.002
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.098
GPT teacher head0.408
Teacher spread0.310 · 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

Citations137
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSeminars in Respiratory and Critical Care MedicineSame topicTransplantation: Methods and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207