Exercise testing in pediatric lung transplant candidates with cystic fibrosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Exercise testing is considered an important prognostic tool for the selection of pediatric lung transplant candidates with end-stage CF lung disease. To better understand the current practice as it pertains to exercise testing, a self-administered questionnaire was distributed to 25 pediatric lung transplant centers within the IPLTC across Australia, Europe, and North America. All centers perform standardized exercise tests. Fifteen centers perform one single-field test (6MWT/12MWT), while seven perform a six-min walk plus an additional test: SWT (N = 1), 3MST (N = 1), and CPET (N = 5). Frequency of testing is markedly different among centers. Two centers conduct exercise testing once, all others at multiple time points. Equipment availability and cost were no limitations, but lack of time (20%) and personnel (16%), and paucity of prognostic evidence (16%) and reference values (12%) were stated. Exercise testing is considered important and extensively used in the evaluation of pediatric lung transplant candidates with CF; methods of exercise test and the frequency of testing vary widely. We propose a prospective multicenter study to evaluate the efficacy of exercise testing and its prognostic value using a standardized protocol.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".