The use of tunneled pleural catheters in the treatment of pleural effusions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Tunneled pleural catheters (TPCs) have become a popular therapeutic tool for chronic pleural effusions. Although the main indication for a TPC has been recurrent, symptomatic, malignant pleural effusion, there are increasing reports of TPC usage in other medical conditions. This article will address the utility of TPCs in malignant pleural effusions, other reported uses, potential complications and catheter maintenance. RECENT FINDINGS: The efficacy of TPCs has been well established in the setting of malignant pleural effusions and this option is now included in the guidelines addressing treatment of this condition. TPCs appear to have similar cost-effectiveness compared to chemical pleurodesis and are particularly useful in patients with trapped lung syndrome or who have shorter predicted lifespans. Attempts at bridging the benefits of pleurodesis and TPCs have been described by several groups and the recent reports have considered their use in chronic benign conditions including congestive heart failure, hepatic hydrothorax and chronic pleural infections. SUMMARY: TPCs are an effective management strategy for symptomatic, recurrent, malignant pleural effusions. Their use as a first-line treatment is feasible and TPCs are particularly preferred for patients with trapped lung or those who are not considered good candidates for chemical pleurodesis because of short life-expectancy. There currently lacks sufficient evidence to recommend the use of TPCs in nonmalignant pleural diseases.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".