MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2409626633

[Present condition of lung transplantation candidates in eastern Japan].

2000· article· en· W2409626633 on OpenAlexaff
Kazumasa Shimada, Y. Matsumura, Takashi Kondo, Yoshifumi Okada, Takeshi Oyaizu, Akira Sakurada, Hiroshi Kubo, Sho Suzuki, Mieko Sagawa, Masaaki Sato, Shigehiro Ono, Tatsuo Tanita, S Fujimura

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTransplantation: Methods and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Aging
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLung transplantationLungPulmonary fibrosisTransplantationPulmonary hypertensionIdiopathic pulmonary fibrosisInternal medicineSurgeryGeneral surgery
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We investigated the present condition of lung transplant candidates and the familiarity of doctors in eastern Japan by questionnaire. We shipped questionnaires to 614 hospitals in the Hokkaido district, the Tohoku district, the Kanto district and Niigata Prefecture, a received responses from 216 departments (200 hospitals). The percentage of respondents was 32.6%. There were 191 lung transplant candidates, 97 men and 94 women, in the past two years. Moreover, there were 45 patients with primary pulmonary hypertension (PPH), 38 with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, 23 with pulmonary emphysema, 20 with pulmonary lymphangiomyomatosis, among others. Currently, however, there are 88 patients who are lung transplant candidates, a large number, in eastern Japan. On the other hand, only 38 of 68 departments had informed their patients about lung transplantation. It was a lamentable result for transplant surgeons, and points urgently to the importance of giving information about lung transplantation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.271 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed→Same topicTransplantation: Methods and Outcomes→French-language works237,207→