Clinical transplantation using negative pressure ventilation ex situ lung perfusion with extended criteria donor lungs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lung transplantation remains the best treatment option for end-stage lung disease; however, is limited by a shortage of donor grafts. Ex situ lung perfusion, also known as ex vivo lung perfusion, has been shown to allow for the safe evaluation and reconditioning of extended criteria donor lungs, increasing donor utilization. Negative pressure ventilation ex situ lung perfusion has been shown, preclinically, to result in less ventilator-induced lung injury than positive pressure ventilation. Here we demonstrate that, in a single-arm interventional study (ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT03293043) of 12 extended criteria donor human lungs, negative pressure ventilation ex situ lung perfusion allows for preservation and evaluation of donor lungs with all grafts and patients surviving to 30 days and recovered to discharge from hospital. This trial also demonstrates that ex situ lung perfusion is safe and feasible with no patients demonstrating primary graft dysfunction scores grade 3 at 72 h or requiring post-operative extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".