Physical rehabilitation for lung transplant candidates and recipients: An evidence-informed clinical approach
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
Physical rehabilitation of lung transplant candidates and recipients plays an important in optimizing physical function prior to transplant and facilitating recovery of function post-transplant. As medical and surgical interventions in lung transplantation have evolved over time, there has been a demographic shift of individuals undergoing lung transplantation including older individuals, those with multiple co-morbidites, and candidates with respiratory failure requiring bridging to transplantation. These changes have an impact on the rehabilitation needs of lung transplant candidates and recipients. This review provides a practical approach to rehabilitation based on research and clinical practice at our transplant centre. It focuses on functional assessment and exercise prescription during an uncomplicated and complicated clinical course in the pre-transplant, early and late post-transplant periods. The target audience includes clinicians involved in pre- and post-transplant patient care and rehabilitation researchers.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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