Donation after circulatory death and lung transplantation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lung transplantation is the most effective modality for the treatment of patients with end-stage lung diseases. Unfortunately, many people cannot benefit from this therapy due to insufficient donor availability. In this review and update article, we discuss donation after circulatory death (DCD), which is undoubtedly essential among the strategies developed to increase the donor pool. However, there are ethical and legislative considerations in the DCD process that are different from those of donation after brain death (DBD). Among others, the critical aspects of DCD are the concept of the end of life, cessation of futile treatments, and withdrawal of life-sustaining therapy. In addition, this review describes a rationale for using lungs from DCD donors and provides some important definitions, highlighting the key differences between DCD and DBD, including physiological aspects pertinent to each category. The unique ability of lungs to maintain cell viability without circulation, assuming that oxygen is supplied to the alveoli-an essential aspect of DCD-is also discussed. Furthermore, an updated review of the clinical experience with DCD for lung transplantation across international centers, recent advances in DCD, and some ethical dilemmas that deserve attention are also reported.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".