MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4214820688 · doi:10.1111/ctr.14634

The changing landscape of pediatric lung transplantation

2022· review· en· W4214820688 on OpenAlexaff
Nicholas Avdimiretz, Christian Benden

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Transplantation · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTransplantation: Methods and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsStollery Children's HospitalUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLung transplantationTransplantationCystic fibrosisLungIntensive care medicineIdiopathic pulmonary fibrosisPulmonary hypertensionPediatricsSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There has been a shift over decades in the diagnostic indications for lung transplantation in children; in particular, there has been a reduction in the proportion of pediatric cystic fibrosis (CF) patients undergoing lung transplantation early in life, and more transplants occurring in other diagnostic groups. Here, we examine trends in pediatric lung transplantation with regards to indications by analyzing data from the United Network of Organ Sharing, the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation Thoracic Transplant Registry, and other sources. Over the past two years, there has been a precipitous decline in both the number of transplants due to CF and the proportion of CF cases relative to the total number of transplants, likely not solely due to the COVID-19 pandemic. In 2020, primary pulmonary arterial hypertension for the first-time surpassed CF as main indication for pediatric lung transplantation in the United States, a finding that is also reflected in international data. We discuss the effect of novel CFTR modulator therapies as a major factor leading to this shifting landscape. Based on our trending, pulmonary hypertension-related diagnoses and pediatric interstitial lung diseases are rising indications, for which we suggest adjustments of consensus guidelines around candidate selection criteria.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.922
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.161
GPT teacher head0.474
Teacher spread0.313 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations46
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical TransplantationSame topicTransplantation: Methods and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207