Bilateral lobar lung transplantation and size mismatch by pTLC-ratio
Bibliographic record
Abstract
tionale for our recently proposed technique [1]. When many different procedures are described for the treatment of the same disease, it is clear that the ideal technique has not been identified yet. In our opinion, the method devised by Actis Dato et al. [2] has a valid theoretical basis and has, in their hands, proved to be safe and effective. Furthermore, the authors have such a considerable experience in this field that their opinion has to be taken into the utmost consideration by the scientific community. In conceiving our technique, we aimed to avoid some drawbacks associated with the use of metallic retrosternal bars while trying to maintain similar long-term results. In fact, a transverse posterior bar limits the thoracic compliance, causes exposures to serious damage in the case of trauma, can be painful and requires a second operation for removal. We think that such disadvantages may justify the research on novel methods. The use of new titanium plates specifically built for sternal stabilization avoids the need for a posterior support, while ensuring the same solidity of the reconstructed sternum. These results can be achieved thanks to the highest strength-to-weight ratio of titanium: the Synthes struts (Synthes, Canada Ltd.) modelled on the anatomical sternal shape are so thin and light that their removal is not required. As correctly noted by Actis Dato et al., the procedure is relatively expensive [3]. This disadvantage is undoubtedly more than offset by the avoidance of a second surgery for the bar removal. Finally, the economic impact of the procedure is limited, as it is indicated in a carefully selected group of patients, with a condition difficult to correct such as the severe asymmetric pectus excavatum.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".