Aerosol cyclosporin therapy in lung transplant recipients with bronchiolitis obliterans
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The majority of patients who develop bronchiolitis obliterans, after lung transplantation, die within 2-3 yrs after onset since treatment with conventional immunosuppression is typically ineffective. A case/control study was conducted in lung transplant recipients with biopsy-documented bronchiolitis obliterans to determine whether aerosol cyclosporin use contributed to increased survival. The cases comprised 39 transplant recipients who received open-label aerosol cyclosporin treatment in addition to conventional immunosuppression. The controls were transplant recipients treated with conventional immunosuppression alone. There were 51 controls from the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center and 100 from a large multicentric database (Novartis Lung Transplant Database). Forced expiratory volume in one second expressed as a percentage of the predicted value was an independent predictor of survival in all patients with bronchiolitis obliterans. Cox proportional-hazards analysis revealed a survival advantage for aerosol cyclosporin cases compared to the Pittsburgh control group. A survival advantage was also seen when comparing study cases to multicentric controls. Aerosol cyclosporin, given with conventional immunosuppression to lung transplant recipients with bronchiolitis obliterans, provides a survival advantage over conventional therapy alone.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".