Extension of Cold Static Donor Lung Preservation at 10°C
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Lung transplantation is performed on a 24/7 schedule to minimize organ ischemic time. Recent preclinical studies demonstrated superior graft preservation at 10°C compared with storage in an ice cooler (gold standard). METHODS: In this prospective, multicenter, nonrandomized clinical trial, we studied transplants from donors with overnight cross-clamp times (6:00 p.m. to 4:00 a.m.) that had an earliest allowed starting time of 6:00 a.m. Lungs meeting criteria for transplantation were retrieved, transported, and immediately transferred to a 10°C temperature-controlled incubator until implantation; 70 patients and 140 matched controls were included in this study. RESULTS: Total preservation times for lungs in the study group were 12 hours, 28 minutes (interquartile range, 10 hours, 14 minutes to 14 hours, 12 minutes) and 14 hours, 9 minutes (interquartile range, 12 hours, 3 minutes to 15 hours, 45 minutes) for the first and second lung implanted, respectively. Primary graft dysfunction grade 3 at 72 hours (primary outcome) was 5.7% in the study group versus 9.3% in matched controls (difference, −3.6; 95% confidence interval [CI], −10.5 to 5.3). No meaningful differences were observed in the need for postoperative extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (5.7 vs. 9.3%), median intensive care unit stay (5 vs. 5 days), or median hospital stay (25 vs. 30 days) between the two groups. One-year Kaplan–Meier survival was similar between the two groups (94 vs. 87%; hazard ratio, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.26 to 1.6). CONCLUSIONS: Extension of cold static preservation times at 10°C appears to be safe and has the potential to improve transplantation logistics and performance. (Funded by the UHN Foundation; Clinicaltrials.gov number, NCT04616365).
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".