Bilateral Lung Transplant for Treatment of Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis With Undetected Lung Adenocarcinoma: A Case Report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Lung transplant has become a curative therapy for various forms of progressive lung disease refractory to medical management. Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is a rare condition characterized by accumulation of activated fibroblasts and secretion of extracellular matrices within the lung parenchyma. End-stage IPF is a fatal condition, with limited medical therapies other than lung transplantation. IPF has been demonstrated as a known risk factor for the development of lung cancer, and current lung transplant standards define history of malignancy within the past five years as an absolute exclusion criterion. CASE REPORT: We present the case of a patient with biopsy-confirmed idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis treated with bilateral lung transplant, discovered to have stage four lung adenocarcinoma in the explanted lungs. The patient subsequently received pseudoadjuvant chemotherapy and remained recurrence-free until 23 months post-transplant. CONCLUSION: This case highlights the challenge of ruling out malignancy in patients with end-stage lung disease. There remains a paucity of clinical studies on lung transplantation for lung cancer and more evidence is required before supporting this clinical decision.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".