White donor, younger donor and double lung transplant are associated with better survival in sarcoidosis patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sarcoidosis commonly affects the lung. Lung transplantation (LT) is required when there is a severe and refractory involvement. We compared post-transplant survival rates of sarcoidosis patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF). We also explored whether the race and age of the donor, and double lung transplant have any effect on the survival in the post transplant setting. We analyzed 9,727 adult patients with sarcoidosis, COPD, and IPF who underwent LT worldwide between 2005-2015 based on United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) database. Survival rates were compared with Kaplan-Meier, and risk factors were investigated by Cox-regression analysis. 469 (5%) were transplanted because of sarcoidosis, 3,688 (38%) for COPD and 5,570 (57%) for IPF. Unadjusted survival analysis showed a better post-transplant survival rate for patients with sarcoidosis (p < 0.001, Log-rank test). In Cox-regression analysis, double lung transplant and white race of the lung donor showed to have a significant survival advantage. Since double lung transplant, those who are younger and have lower Lung Allocation Score (LAS) at the time of transplant have a survival advantage, we suggest double lung transplant as the procedure of choice, especially in younger sarcoidosis subjects and with lower LAS scores.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".