Remote ex vivo lung perfusion at a centralized evaluation facility
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In the US, only 23% of lungs offered for transplantation are transplanted. Ex vivo lung perfusion (EVLP) allows for evaluation of additional donor lungs; its adoption has been limited by resources and expertise. Dedicated facilities with a centralized lung evaluation system (CLES) could expand access to EVLP. METHODS: In this unblinded, nonrandomized, traditional feasibility study, 7 US transplant centers referred lungs declined for standard transplantation to a dedicated EVLP facility, which utilized a CLES. EVLP was remotely monitored by the transplant teams. CLES lungs were matched with contemporaneous conventional static cold-preserved controls at each center. RESULTS: A total of 115 recipients were enrolled, and 66 received allografts from 63 donors after EVLP at the dedicated CLES facility. Forty-nine contemporaneous patients served as controls. Primary graft dysfunction grade 3 at 72 hours (PGD3-72 hours) was higher in the CLES group with 16 (24%) vs 2 (4%) in the control (common RD 95% CI, 0.07-0.32; p = 0.0009). All recipients survived to 30 days and 1-year survival was similar for both groups (92% controls vs 89% CLES; common RD 95% CI, -0.14-0.08; p = 0.58). Total preservation time, hospital and ICU lengths of stay, and time to first extubation were longer in the CLES group. CONCLUSIONS: Remote ex vivo perfusion of lung allografts declined for conventional transplantation at a dedicated CLES facility is feasible and resulted in additional transplants. Recipients of allografts assessed with a CLES had a higher rate of PGD3-72 hours, but similar 30-day and 1-year outcomes compared to conventional lung recipients. (NCT02234128).
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".