MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2115418290 · doi:10.1101/cshperspect.a015628

Overview of Clinical Lung Transplantation

2014· review· en· W2115418290 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Medicine · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTransplantation: Methods and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLung transplantationTransplantationLungMedicineUniversity hospitalLibrary scienceGerontologyInternal medicineComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since the first successful lung transplant 30 years ago, lung transplantation has rapidly become an established standard of care to treat end-stage lung disease in selected patients. Advances in lung preservation, surgical technique, and immunosuppression regimens have resulted in the routine performance of lung transplantation around the world for an increasing number of patients, with wider indications. Despite this, donor shortages and chronic lung allograft dysfunction continue to prevent lung transplantation from reaching its full potential. With research into the underlying mechanisms of acute and chronic lung graft dysfunction and advances in personalized diagnostic and therapeutic approaches to both the donor lung and the lung transplant recipient, there is increasing confidence that we will improve short- and long-term outcomes in the near future.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.641
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.204
GPT teacher head0.516
Teacher spread0.312 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it