Impact of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease on Patients Undergoing Lung Transplantation for COVID-19: A Single Institution Retrospective Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-associated respiratory failure undergoing lung transplantation is an emerging subset of transplant patients in which gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) pre- or post-transplant is not well characterized. Methods: We retrospectively evaluated patients undergoing lung transplant for COVID-19, with attention to pre- and post-operative physiological testing for GERD. Results: Seventeen patients were identified who had undergone lung transplant for COVID-19. No patient underwent pre-transplant GERD testing. Post-transplant, 70.5% (12/17) patients reported reflux symptoms confirmed with additional testing. Three patients underwent anti-reflux surgery (ARS) based on results of testing, and none had complications or symptom-based recurrence of reflux. Conclusion: Our study depicts a unique cohort of patients who were unable to undergo pre-transplant testing for GERD in the setting of a global pandemic, and who were routinely assessed and managed post-transplant. J Curr Surg. 2023;13(1):12-16 doi: https://doi.org/10.14740/jcs467
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".