Uncontrolled Donation after Circulatory Death Only Lung Program: An Urgent Opportunity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Uncontrolled donation after circulatory death (uDCD) represents a potential source of lungs, and since Steen's 2001 landmark case in Sweden, lungs have been recovered from uDCD donors and transplanted to patients in other European countries (France, the Netherlands, Spain and Italy) with promising results. Disparities still exist among European countries and among regions in Italy due to logistical and organizational factors. The present manuscript focuses on the clinical experiences pertaining to uDCD lungs in North America and European countries and on different lung maintenance methods. Existing experiences (and protocols) are not uniform, especially with respect to the type of lung maintenance, the definition of warm ischemic time (WIT) and, finally, the use of ex vivo perfusion (available in the last several years in most centers). In situ lung cooling may be superior to protective ventilation, but this process may be difficult to perform in the uDCD setting and is also time-consuming. On the other hand, the "protective ventilation technique" is simpler and feasible in every hospital. It may lead to a broader use of uDCD lung donors. To date, the results of lung transplants performed after protective ventilation as a preservation technique are scarce but promising. All the protocols comprise, among the inclusion criteria, a witnessed cardiac arrest. The detectable differences included preservation time (240 vs. 180 min) and donor age (<55 years in Spanish protocols and <65 years in Toronto protocols). Overall, independently of the differences in protocols, lungs from uDCD donors show promising results, and the possibility of optimizing ex vivo lung perfusion may broaden the use of these organs.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".