A Scoping Review of the Literature on Sleep Quality in Adult Lung Transplant Recipients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Lung transplant recipients face challenging postoperative complications and are at risk for poor sleep quality. Sleep quality, as a complex clinical phenomenon, has multiple subjective and objective connotations. Measures and definitions of sleep quality are not standardized. Objective: A scoping review methodology was used to systematically map the relevant literature, provide an overview of available sleep quality measures, and to identify knowledge gaps. Methods: A systematic search of published and gray literature enabled knowledge synthesis of the last 10 years of evidence documenting sleep quality in lung transplant recipients. The search revealed 246 articles with only 12 sources meeting the eligibility criteria. Results: Sources varied in terms of definitions and measures of sleep quality. Subjective, objective, or a combination of both measures were used across the relevant literature with findings confirming that poor sleep quality was common in lung transplant recipients. Significant associations with poor sleep quality included younger age, female gender, exposure to tacrolimus, anxiety, and depression. Discussion: Systematic literature assessing sleep quality in lung transplant recipients is sparse and lacks conceptual and operational definitions. Future research can focus on designing prospective observational studies. Subjective and objective measures for sleep quality need to be validated in lung transplant recipients. Further rigorous research is needed to standardize measures of sleep quality and to further examine potential risk factors that affect sleep after lung transplantation.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".