Living-donor lobar lung transplantation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose of review To address the donor shortage issue, living-donor lobar lung transplantations have been performed in some institutions. This paper will review the current status of living-donor lobar lung transplantation. Recent findings Up to 2006, living-donor lobar lung transplantation has been performed in approximately 300 patients worldwide. As only two lobes are transplanted, cystic fibrosis represents the most common indication for living-donor lobar lung transplantation, because patients are usually small in body size. Indications for living-donor lobar lung transplantation have recently been expanded to include paediatric and adult patients with various lung diseases such as idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis and pulmonary arterial hypertension. Survival appears to be similar to or better than International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation registry data on cadaveric lung transplantation. Living-donor lobar lung transplantation may improve survival after paediatric lung retransplantation. The Vancouver Forum Lung Group proposed the eligibility criteria for living lobar donation. Summary This procedure can be applied to restrictive, obstructive, infectious, and hypertensive lung diseases for both paediatric and adult patients. As a result of the possible serious complications after donor lobectomy, living-donor lobar lung transplantation should be performed only for very sick patients by a well-prepared programme.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
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".