A Leukocyte Filter Does Not Provide Further Benefit During Ex Vivo Lung Perfusion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Normothermic ex vivo lung perfusion (EVLP) allows for assessment and reconditioning of donor lungs. Although a leukocyte filter (LF) is routinely incorporated into the EVLP circuit; its efficacy remains to be determined. Twelve pig lungs were perfused and ventilated ex vivo in a normothermic state for 12 hours. Lungs (n = 3) were allocated to four groups according to perfusate composition and the presence or absence of a LF in the circuit (acellular ± LF, cellular ± LF). Acceptable physiologic lung parameters were achieved during EVLP; however, increased amounts of pro-inflammatory cytokines (TNF-α and IL-6) and leukocytes in the perfusate were observed despite the presence or absence of a LF. Analysis of cells washed off the LF demonstrates that it trapped leukocytes although being ineffective throughout perfusion as it became saturated over 12 hours of EVLP. We conclude that there is no objective evidence to support the routine incorporation of a LF during EVLP as it does not provide further benefit and its removal does not appear to cause harm. The lack of hypothesized benefit to a LF may be because of the saturation of the LF with donor leukocytes, leading to similar amounts of circulating leukocytes still present in the perfusate with and without a LF.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".