Volatile organic compound profiling to explore primary graft dysfunction after lung transplantation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Primary graft dysfunction (PGD) is a major determinant of morbidity and mortality following lung transplantation. Delineating basic mechanisms and molecular signatures of PGD remain a fundamental challenge. This pilot study examines if the pulmonary volatile organic compound (VOC) spectrum relate to PGD and postoperative outcomes. The VOC profiles of 58 bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF) and blind bronchial aspirate samples from 35 transplant patients were extracted using solid-phase-microextraction and analyzed with comprehensive two-dimensional gas chromatography coupled to time-of-flight mass spectrometry. The support vector machine algorithm was used to identify VOCs that could differentiate patients with severe from lower grade PGD. Using 20 statistically significant VOCs from the sample headspace collected immediately after transplantation (< 6 h), severe PGD was differentiable from low PGD with an AUROC of 0.90 and an accuracy of 0.83 on test set samples. The model was somewhat effective for later time points with an AUROC of 0.80. Three major chemical classes in the model were dominated by alkylated hydrocarbons, linear hydrocarbons, and aldehydes in severe PGD samples. These VOCs may have important clinical and mechanistic implications, therefore large-scale study and potential translation to breath analysis is recommended.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".