Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Recent advances have led to improved outcomes in lung transplantation. The International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation Registry data have shown a steady increase in the number of cases performed annually. Although somewhat controversial, lung transplantation (LTx) for lung cancer has also slowly increased. The current role of LTx for malignant diseases and the management challenge of incidental lung cancer in the explanted lungs are reviewed herein. RECENT FINDINGS: For a few particular scenarios (advanced multifocal bronchioloalveolar carcinoma causing chronic respiratory failure, end-stage lung disease concomitant with early stage lung cancer, and metastatic disease restricted to the lungs with the primary site controlled) in which nonsurgical alternatives fail to provide adequate palliation, LTx may be considered. Nevertheless, in order to achieve acceptable results, careful patient selection and staging are paramount. In patients with incidental bronchogenic carcinoma in the explanted lung following transplantation, the prognosis is mainly driven by the malignancy stage. SUMMARY: LTx can be performed to treat malignant diseases with results approaching those for nonneoplastic indications, given that patients are carefully selected and staged. Although they have not been widely applied in the reported lung transplant literature, modalities such as endobronchial ultrasound and positron emission tomography scan are strongly encouraged and have the potential to further refine staging in this population.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it