Gastroesophageal reflux disease in lung transplant recipients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Chronic allograft dysfunction after lung transplantation contributes to poor long-term survival. A link between gastric aspiration and post-transplant lung dysfunction has been suggested, but little is known about the significance of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) after lung transplantation. METHODS: A retrospective study was performed to determine the prevalence of GERD in lung transplant recipients. Patients who underwent lung transplantation at Duke University, survived at least 6 months and had post-transplant 24-h pH studies were included in the analysis. Antireflux medications were discontinued prior to the pH study. Demographic data, pH study date and results, FEV1 at the time of the pH study, confirmed acute rejection episodes, and current medications were collected. The FEV1 ratio was calculated at the time of pH study (current FEV1/best post-transplant FEV1). RESULTS: Forty-three patients met entry criteria. Studies were performed at a median of 558 d post-transplant. Thirty of forty-three (69.8%) patients tested had abnormal total acid contact times (normal: <5%). The mean acid contact times for all patients were 10% total, 11.8% upright and 7.9% supine. A negative correlation was found between total or upright acid reflux and FEV1 ratio at the time of studies (-0.341 and -0.419; p = 0.025 and p = 0.005, respectively). The effect of acid reflux on FEV1 ratio remained significant after multivariable analysis. CONCLUSIONS: There is a high prevalence of GERD among selected lung transplant recipients who had pH studies performed and its presence is associated with worse pulmonary function. Future studies are needed to assess whether GERD contributes to the pathogenesis of bronchiolitis obliterans syndrome (BOS).
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".