Application of the Lectin-Dependent Cell-Mediated Cytotoxicity Assay to Bronchoalveolar Lavage Fluid and Venous Blood Samples Collected from Canine Lung Allografts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the major obstacles in postoperative management of lung transplant recipients is differentiating between rejection and infection episodes. In addition, there are no reliable methods routinely to monitor lung allografts to ascertain that they are well tolerated by the host. Conventional noninvasive methods such as chest roentgenographs, radio nuclide perfusion scans, and pulmonary function tests used in conjunction with clinical assessment have been shown to be nonspecific (1,2). Other invasive methods used to facilitate the differentiation of rejection from infection are transbronchial biopsy (TBB) and bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL)(3-6) The technique of BAL offers a unique opportunity for the safe and repetitive harvesting of large quantities of graft infiltrating immunocompetent cells from the transplanted lung. The supernatant fluid collected may also contain microorganisms, soluble cytokines, and other mediators that may reflect the changes occurring in the allograft due to infection or rejection.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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".