Bibliographic record
Abstract
Historical background Success with clinical single lung transplantation was first described by the Toronto group in 1986 [1]. They built on a huge programme of experimental work going back almost 40 years. The basic surgical steps of lung transplantation had been set out by Metras in 1949 [2], much of the physiology being described in a series of experiments coming from the laboratory of Frank Veith in New York. The first human lung transplantation was performed as early as 1963 by Hardy [3]. This case was indeed notable because it demonstrated early function of a lung from a nonheart-beating donor. Other landmarks during the 1970s included an appreciation of the difficulties of ventilation–perfusion (VQ) mismatch in the setting of emphysema [4], and a patient in Belgium who lived for over six months, the latter demonstrating the physiological advantage of giving patients with restrictive disease a transplant [5]. The other theme running through these initial attempts was the problem of bronchial healing [5]. The Toronto group ascribed their success to solution of the bronchus problem (by wrapping with an omental pedicle), and an emphasis on case selection. They realized the advantages of giving a transplant to patients with fibrotic disease and the importance of adequate preoperative rehabilitation. Evolution of isolated lung transplantation Fibrotic disease is the ideal indication for a single lung transplant because both ventilation and perfusion are directed towards the graft. The very earliest attempts to perform single lung transplant for emphysema had been unsuccessful because of the preferential ventilation of the much more compliant native lung.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.029 | 0.005 |
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".