Lung Transplantation in Systemic Sclerosis: a Practice Survey of United States Lung Transplant Centers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lung transplantation in patients with systemic sclerosis (SSc) can be complicated by extrapulmonary manifestations of the disease, leading to concerns regarding posttransplant complications and outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a web-based survey of adult lung transplant programs in the United States regarding their practices in patients with SSc. RESULTS: Sixty percent (37/62) of the eligible centers responded to the survey, majority of the respondents were medical directors (81%). Most centers would consider transplanting patients with mild or moderate esophageal disease (92% or 75%, respectively) or gastroparesis (59%). A minority would consider patients with severe esophageal dysmotility (37%), digital ulcers (21%), or low body mass index (19%). Most centers conducted extensive pretransplant gastrointestinal evaluation and use a conservative feeding approach with prolonged nothing by mouth (83%) and postpyloric feeding (89%). Antireflux surgery is commonly considered (40%) with partial fundoplication being the procedure of choice (67%). Most respondents expected similar outcomes of acute or chronic rejection (81% and 51%, respectively), respiratory infections (76%), and 1-year survival (70%). CONCLUSIONS: Most US lung transplant centers do not universally exclude SSc from lung transplant listing, but most support extensive pretransplant gastrointestinal testing and a conservative approach to feeding in the early posttransplant period.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".