Post-transplant complications Pulmonary function abnormalities after allogeneic marrow transplantation: a systematic review and assessment of an existing predictive instrument
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary: Pulmonary function testing (PFT) is used to characterize non-infectious pulmonary complications after allogeneic BMT. Identifying high-risk patients could facilitate preventive or early therapeutic measures. The objectives of the study were first, to review available data on PFT changes after BMT and second, to validate a previously published predictive index for PFT obstruction in patients transplanted at one center. For the systematic review, frequency, severity and time course of PFT changes after BMT and for the validation study, retrospective cohort comparing predicted with observed PFT, and calculation of indices of predictive accuracy were summarized. The validation study involved 434 patients from Princess Margaret Hospital, Toronto, Canada, who received their first BMT between 1980 and 1997, survived for at least 6 months and had adequate PFT follow-up. The systematic review included 20 studies. After BMT, decreased diffusion and total lung capacity were common and partially reversible. Obstruction was less common. The validation study of a previously published index, performed in 434 patients, found a sensitivity and specificity of 48% and 68% for identifying patients who develop obstruction. We concluded that PFT changes after BMT are common. A published predictive index is not sufficiently accurate to identify high-risk patients for potential preventive or early therapeutic strategies.
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 | 0.010 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".