MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4311220184 · doi:10.1007/s41030-022-00209-5

A Randomized, Multicenter, Blinded Pilot Study Assessing the Effects of Gaseous Nitric Oxide in an Ex Vivo System of Human Lungs

2022· article· en· W4311220184 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenuePulmonary Therapy · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTransplantation: Methods and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals
KeywordsMedicineLung transplantationNitric oxideLungAnesthesiaTransplantationNuclear medicineSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Normothermic ex vivo lung perfusion (EVLP) is used to evaluate and condition donor lungs for transplantation. The objective of this study was to determine whether administration of exogenous nitric oxide during EVLP contributes to improvement of lung health. A multicenter, blinded, two-arm, randomized pilot study evaluated the effect of gaseous nitric oxide (gNO) administered during EVLP on donor lungs rejected for transplantation. gNO introduced into the perfusate at 80 parts per million (ppm) was compared with perfusate alone (P). An open-label substudy assessed inhaled nitric oxide gas (iNO) delivered into the lungs at 20 ppm via a ventilator. Primary endpoints were an aggregate score of lung physiology indicators and total duration of stable EVLP time. Secondary endpoints included assessments of lung weight and left atrium partial pressure of oxygen (LAPO2). Twenty bilateral donor lungs (blinded study, n = 16; open-label substudy, n = 4) from three centers were enrolled. Median (min, max) total EVLP times for the gNO, P, and iNO groups were 12.4 (8.6, 12.6), 10.6 (6.0, 12.4), and 12.4 (8.7, 13.0) hours, respectively. In the blinded study, median aggregate scores were higher in the gNO group compared to the P group at most time points, suggesting better lung health with gNO (median score range [min, max], 0–3.5 [0, 7]) vs. P (0–2.0 [0, 5] at end of study). In the substudy, median aggregate scores did not improve for lungs in the iNO group. However, both the gNO and iNO groups showed improvements in lung weight and LAPO2 compared to the P group. The data suggest that inclusion of gNO during EVLP may potentially prolong duration of organ stability and improve donor lung health, which warrants further investigation.

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.479
Threshold uncertainty score0.464

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.321 · 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