Clinical characteristics of cystic fibrosis patients prior to lung transplantation: An international comparison between Canada and the United States
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cystic fibrosis (CF) patients from Canada have better-reported post-lung transplant survival compared to patients from the United States. We hypothesized the clinical characteristics of CF patients prior to lung transplant differ between the two countries. METHODS: Population-based cohort study utilizing combined Canadian CF Registry and US CF Foundation Patient Registry data from 1986 to 2013. Demographic and clinical variables were analyzed prior to lung transplant. RESULTS: Between 1986 and 2013, 607 (10.2%) CF patients underwent lung transplantation in Canada and 3428 (7.5%) in the United States. A lower proportion of recipients had growth of B. cepacia complex prior to transplant in the United States compared to Canada (0.8% vs 4.3%). Lung function was similar between recipients from the two countries. The proportion of patients classified as underweight was significantly higher in the United States compared to Canada (39.8% vs 28.0%; SD 26.1) despite higher rates of feeding tube use (42.5% vs 28.6%; SD 29.0). CONCLUSIONS: CF lung transplant recipients from the United States have similar lung function, lower rates of B. cepacia complex, and worse nutritional parameters prior to transplant compared to counterparts in Canada. Future studies are necessary to evaluate the impact of these differences on post-transplant survival.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".