Utility of pulmonary function test screening for bronchiolitis obliterans syndrome stage 0-p among recipients of allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation conditioned with antithymocyte globulin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Timely diagnosis of bronchiolitis obliterans syndrome (BOS) following allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (allo-HCT) is challenging due to the paucity of symptoms early in the disease course. Pulmonary function tests (PFT) are proposed as a screening tool to identify patients at risk of developing BOS in this population.METHODS We performed a retrospective study including patients who underwent allo-HCT with antithymocyte globulin (ATG) conditioning between May 2010 and August 2020, survived without relapse for at least 3 months, and had a pre-transplant PFT and at least 2 post-transplant PFTs. Patients met BOS-0p if their PFTs demonstrated a sustained >10% drop in FEV1 or >25% drop in FEF25-75. A competing risks regression model was used to estimate the cumulative incidence of BOS and BOS-0p. Test performance characteristics for BOS-0p were calculated using 2x2 tables.RESULTS The cumulative incidence of BOS was 2.1% (CI 0.8-4.6) at 12 months and 5.4% (CI 2.8-9.3) at 60 months post-transplant. Meeting BOS-0p during the first 2 years post-transplantation yielded a sensitivity of 64% (CI 31-89), specificity of 71% (CI 64-77), PPV of 10% (CI 4-20), and NPV of 97% (CI 93-99) for subsequent development of BOS. Meeting BOS-0p was associated with increased mortality (HR 2.27, p = 0.006).CONCLUSION Although patients who meet BOS-0p within 2 years of transplant are more likely to develop BOS, prompt repeat testing is needed to confirm entry into the stage if a patient meets spirometric criteria on a single PFT.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".