[The operative technique selection of lung transplantation for end-stage emphysema].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the operation of lung transplantation for end-stage emphysema. METHODS: From September 2002 to February 2005, 9 patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) underwent lung transplantation. The types of surgery included single lung transplantation in 2 patients, lung transplantation with asynchronous contralateral lung volume reduction (one week later) in 1, single lung transplantation with synchronized contralateral lung volume reduction in 4, and bilateral sequential lung transplantation without cardiopulmonary bypass in 2. RESULTS: The volume of chest drainage was more than 2000 ml at the first postoperative day in 2 patients, one was reoperated for hemostasis and another was successfully responded to conservative therapy. The ventilation time was ranged from 3 to 22 days postoperatively. Two patients were received tracheotomy. Seven patients achieved good results, two of them had returned to work, and 1 patient had lived for 30 months. One patient was died of severe acute rejection (4A) at 15th postoperative day and 1 succumbed to multisystem organ failure due to severe bacterial infection combine fungal infection. CONCLUSION: End-stage emphysema is an indication for single lung transplantation. Single lung transplantation with contralateral lung volume reduction is a good way to utilize donor. If patient suffered from infection, double-lung transplantation should be considered first.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".