Factors affecting discharge destination following lung transplantation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Lung transplant (LT) recipients requiring additional care may be referred to inpatient rehabilitation prior to discharge home. This study seeks to describe discharge destinations following LT, compare the characteristics of patients discharged to different destinations, and identify the predictors of discharge destination. METHODS: Retrospective study of 243 LT recipients who survived to hospital discharge between 2006 and 2009. LT recipients were compared based on discharge destination on data pertaining to demographics, clinical characteristics, and healthcare utilization. RESULTS: Of the 243 recipients, 197 (81%) were discharged home, 42 (17%) to inpatient rehabilitation, and 4 (2%) to other medical facilities. Age, pulmonary diagnosis, most recent six-minute walk distance (6 MWD) prior to transplant, pre-transplant mechanical ventilation, priority listing status, pre- and post-transplant intensive care unit length of stay (ICU LOS), post-transplant LOS, total LOS, and participation in pre-transplant rehabilitation were statistically different between patients that were discharged home versus inpatient rehabilitation. Age, most recent 6 MWD prior to transplant, pre-transplant mechanical ventilation, and total LOS were found to be independent predictors of discharge destination. CONCLUSION: Clinical factors can help identify patients more likely to require inpatient rehabilitation. Identification of these factors has the potential to facilitate early discharge planning and optimize continuity of care.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".