[Clinical analysis of patients referred for lung transplantation in eastern Japan].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We investigated the indications for lung transplantation (LTx) in Japan and discussed questions regarding the current Japanese criteria of LTx. This study examined 37 patients referred to our institute for LTx. Among these patients, there were 11 cases of primary pulmonary hypertension (PPH), 6 of lymphoangiomyomatosis (LAM), 4 of Eisenmenger's syndrome, 3 of bronchiolitis obliterans, 2 each of bronchiectasis, idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF), and pneumoconiosis, and 7 of other diseases. The most frequent age group was 30-39 years (12 cases, 32.4%), and more than half of the patients were female (22 cases, 59.5%). The regions of residence of the patients were Tohoku (19 patients), Kanto (16), and Chubu (2). Patients were referred from all over eastern Japan. On evaluation, LTx was contraindicated in 5 cases, in 4 of which mechanical ventilation had been installed before consultation with us. Six patients died before registration on the Japan Organ Transplant Network (JOT). 6 transplant candidates were registered with JOT, but one (PPH) died after 6 months of waiting, and one (LAM) received a lung transplant from a brain dead cadaver donor. We propose to reform and clarify the Japanese criteria for LTx-both indications and contraindications, to include such indications as a survival probability of less than two years, and such contraindications as mechanical ventilation. Early consultation at LTx centers was hoped for, in accordance with the International Guidelines and a transplant window.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".