Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: Lung transplantation nowadays is a well-accepted and routine treatment for well selected patients with terminal respiratory disease. However, it took several decades of experimental studies and clinical attempts to reach this success. In this paper, we describe the early experimental activity from the mid-forties until the early sixties. The first clinical attempt in humans was reported by Hardy and Webb in 1963 followed by others with short survival only except for one case by Derom et al. who lived for 10 months. Long-term successes were not reported until after the discovery of cyclosporine as a new immunosuppressive agent. Successful heart-lung transplantation (HLTx) for pulmonary vascular disease was performed by the Stanford group starting in 1981 while the Toronto group described good outcome after single-lung transplantation (SLTx) for pulmonary fibrosis in 1983 and after double-lung transplantation for emphysema in 1986. Further evolution in surgical techniques and in transplant type for the various forms of end-stage lung diseases are reviewed. The evolution in lung transplantation still continues nowadays with the use of pulmonary allografts coming from living-related donors, from donors after circulatory death, or after prior assessment and reconditioning during ex vivo lung perfusion (EVLP) in an attempt to overcome the critical shortage of suitable organs. Early outcome has significantly improved over the last three decades. Better treatment and prevention of chronic lung allograft dysfunction will hopefully result in further improvement of long-term survival after lung transplantation.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.008 |
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".