MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The use of multiple transbronchial biopsies as the standard approach to evaluate lung allograft rejection

2004· review· en· W2155869703 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Gary Visner

Bibliographic record

VenuePediatric Transplantation · 2004
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTransplantation: Methods and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersHospital for Sick ChildrenCleveland Clinic
KeywordsMedicineSubclinical infectionBronchiolitis obliteransLung transplantationBronchiolitisIncidence (geometry)BiopsyLungBronchoscopyClinical trialSurgeryRadiologyInternal medicineRespiratory system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Flexible bronchoscopy with transbronchial biopsy (TBB) is routinely performed in adult and pediatric lung transplant recipients. The clinical signs and symptoms of acute cellular rejection (ACR) are often identical to those of infection. TBB is a fairly sensitive and specific tool in which to diagnose ACR and can be performed safely in children of all ages. The utility of TBB is unquestioned during periods of worsening clinical symptoms. The utility of TBB for routine surveillance of the allograft remains unproven. The data suggests that during the first 4-6 months post-transplant there is a high incidence of clinically silent ACR. The significance of subclinical rejection in lung transplantation is unknown. Randomized, controlled trials are required to determine if multiple surveillance TBB, can impact the incidence of obliterative bronchiolitis.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.087
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.285 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations41
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePediatric TransplantationSame topicTransplantation: Methods and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207