Chest X-ray Sizing for Lung Transplants Reflects Pulmonary Diagnosis and Body Composition and Is Associated With Primary Graft Dysfunction Risk
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Donor-recipient oversizing based on predicted total lung capacity (pTLC) is associated with a reduced risk of primary graft dysfunction (PGD) following lung transplant but the effect varies with the recipient's diagnosis. Chest x-ray (CXR) measurements to estimate actual total lung capacity (TLC) could account for disease-related lung volume changes, but their role in size matching is unknown. METHODS: We reviewed adult double lung transplant recipients 2007-2016 and measured apex-to-costophrenic-angle distance (=lung height) on pretransplant donor and recipient CXRs (oversized donor-recipient ratio >1; undersized ≤1]. We tested the relationship between recipient lung height to actual TLC; between lung height ratio and donor/recipient characteristics; and between both lung height ratio or pTLC ratio and grade 3 PGD with logistic regression. RESULTS: Two hundred six patients were included and 32 (16%) developed grade 3 PGD at 48 or 72 hours. Recipient lung height was related to TLC (r2=0.7297). Pulmonary diagnosis, donor BMI, and recipient BMI were the major determinants of lung height ratio (AUC 0.9036). Lung height ratio oversizing was associated with increased risk of grade 3 PGD (odds ratio, 2.51; 95% confidence interval, 1.17-5.47; P = 0.0182) in this cohort, while pTLC ratio oversizing was not. CONCLUSIONS: CXR lung height estimates actual TLC and reflects pulmonary diagnosis and body composition. Oversizing via CXR lung height ratio increased PGD risk moreso than pTLC-based oversizing in our cohort.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".