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 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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".