Investigating Defects of Esophageal Motility in Lung Transplant Recipients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Lung transplant patients are at risk of developing chronic lung allograft dysfunction (CLAD) of which bronchitis obliterans syndrome (BOS) is the most common. These patients also are noted to develop gastrointestinal (GI) disease. Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is implicated in BOS, and diagnosis and treatment of GERD may help to decrease incidence of BOS. Methods: A total of 131 lung transplant recipients with post-transplant evaluation between 2012 and 2019 were studied. Of 60 post-transplant evaluations with at least 6 months of post-transplant follow-up that included impedance testing, high-resolution manometry (HRM), and pH testing, procedures were performed according to recognized standards. Results: Of 60 patients, 56 (93%) were alive at 1-year post-transplant. The patients were found to have high rates of GI motility diseases: 37 patients (62%) had abnormal impedance testing, 50 patients (83%) had abnormal HRM results, 22 patients (37%) had abnormal pH test results. There was associated high rejection rates in patients with abnormal esophageal motility. There were 37 patients that had abnormal impedance test results and of those 25 patients (67%) developed rejection. Fifty patients had abnormal post-transplant HRM studies, 33 (66%) had an acute cellular rejection episode. Twenty-two patients had abnormal pH results, with 14 (63%) having an acute cellular rejection. Conclusions: Patients undergoing lung transplantation were found to have increased incidence of abnormal GI motility studies of the esophagus. These patients were further found to have increased rejection rates and BOS which has been associated with worsened mortality. Developing a formalized pre- and post-transplant motility study process, using evolving technologies for these patients, may provide guidance of at-risk patients for CLAD and early treatment to prevent CLAD.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".