Lung Function 5 yr after Lung Volume Reduction Surgery for Emphysema
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Current datum more than 2 yr after lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS) for emphysema is limited. This prospective study evaluates pre-LVRS baseline and 5-yr results in 26 symptomatic patients (mean age 67 +/- 6 yr) (mean +/- SD) who underwent bilateral, targeted upper lobe stapled LVRS using video-assisted thoracoscopy. Baseline forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV(1)) was 0.7 +/- 0.2 L (mean +/- SD), 29 +/- 10% predicted. Following LVRS, with none lost to follow-up, mortality due to respiratory failure at 0.5, 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 yr was 4%, 4%, 19%, 31%, 46%, and 58%, respectively. Increase above baseline for FEV(1) > 200 ml and/or FVC > 400 ml at 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 yr post-LVRS was noted in 73%, 46%, 35%, 27%, and 8% of all patients; decrease in dyspnea grade >/= 1 in 88%, 69%, 46%, 27%, and 15%; and elimination of initial oxygen dependence in 18 patients in 78%, 50%, 33%, 22%, and 0%, respectively. Expiratory airflow improved due to the increase in both lung elastic recoil and small airway intraluminal caliber. Five patients decreased FEV(1) 141 +/- 60 ml/yr and FVC 102 +/- 189 ml/yr over 3.8 +/- 1.2 yr post-LVRS, similar to their pre-LVRS rate of decline. In the 11 patients who survived 5 yr, at 0.5-1.0 yr post-LVRS peak increase in FEV(1) was 438 +/- 366 ml, with a decline of 149 +/- 157 ml the following year and 78 +/- 59 ml/yr over 4.0-4.5 yr. Bilateral LVRS provided palliative clinical and physiological improvement in 9 of 26 patients at 3 yr, 7 at 4 yr, and 2 at 5 yr.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".