Lung Transplantation for Lymphangioleiomyomatosis in Japan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Lung transplantation has been established as the definitive treatment option for patients with advanced lymphangioleiomyomatosis (LAM). However, the prognosis after registration and the circumstances of lung transplantation with sirolimus therapy have never been reported. METHODS: In this national survey, we analyzed data from 98 LAM patients registered for lung transplantation in the Japan Organ Transplantation Network. RESULTS: Transplantation was performed in 57 patients as of March 2014. Survival rate was 86.7% at 1 year, 82.5% at 3 years, 73.7% at 5 years, and 73.7% at 10 years. Of the 98 patients, 21 had an inactive status and received sirolimus more frequently than those with an active history (67% vs. 5%, p<0.001). Nine of twelve patients who remained inactive as of March 2014 initiated sirolimus before or while on a waiting list, and remained on sirolimus thereafter. Although the statistical analysis showed no statistically significant difference, the survival rate after registration tended to be better for lung transplant recipients than for those who awaited transplantation (p = 0.053). CONCLUSIONS: Lung transplantation is a satisfactory therapeutic option for advanced LAM, but the circumstances for pre-transplantation LAM patients are likely to alter with the use of sirolimus.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".