Intra-subject variability in oscillometry correlates with acute rejection and CLAD post-lung transplant
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Chronic lung allograft dysfunction (CLAD) is the major cause of death post-lung transplantation, with acute cellular rejection (ACR) being the biggest contributing risk factor. Although patients are routinely monitored with spirometry, FEV1 is stable or improving in most ACR episodes. In contrast, oscillometry is highly sensitive to respiratory mechanics and shown to track graft injury associated with ACR and its improvement following treatment. We hypothesize that intra-subject variability in oscillometry measurements correlates with ACR and risk of CLAD. Methods Of 289 bilateral lung recipients enrolled for oscillometry prior to laboratory-based spirometry between December 2017 and March 2020, 230 had ≥ 3 months and 175 had ≥ 6 months of follow-up. While 37 patients developed CLAD, only 29 had oscillometry at time of CLAD onset and were included for analysis. These 29 CLAD patients were time-matched with 129 CLAD-free recipients. We performed multivariable regression to investigate the associations between variance in spirometry/oscillometry and the A-score, a cumulative index of ACR, as our predictor of primary interest. Conditional logistic regression models were built to investigate associations with CLAD. Results Multivariable regression showed that the A-score was positively associated with the variance in oscillometry measurements. Conditional logistic regression models revealed that higher variance in the oscillometry metrics of ventilatory inhomogeneity, X5, AX, and R5-19, was independently associated with increased risk of CLAD (p < 0.05); no association was found for variance in %predicted FEV1. Conclusion Oscillometry tracks graft injury and recovery post-transplant. Monitoring with oscillometry could facilitate earlier identification of graft injury, prompting investigation to identify treatable causes and decrease the risk of 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 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 | 0.004 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".