The Lung Microbiome Predicts Mortality and Response to Azithromycin in Lung Transplant Recipients with Chronic Rejection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Rationale Chronic lung allograft dysfunction (CLAD) is the leading cause of death after lung transplant, and azithromycin has variable efficacy in CLAD. The lung microbiome is a risk factor for developing CLAD, but the relationship between lung dysbiosis, pulmonary inflammation, and allograft dysfunction remains poorly understood. Whether lung microbiota predict outcomes or modify treatment response after CLAD is unknown. Objectives To determine whether lung microbiota predict post-CLAD outcomes and clinical response to azithromycin. Methods Retrospective cohort study using acellular BAL fluid prospectively collected from recipients of lung transplant within 90 days of CLAD onset. Lung microbiota were characterized using 16S rRNA gene sequencing and droplet digital PCR. In two additional cohorts, causal relationships of dysbiosis and inflammation were evaluated by comparing lung microbiota with CLAD-associated cytokines and measuring ex vivo P. aeruginosa growth in sterilized BAL fluid. Measurements and Main Results Patients with higher bacterial burden had shorter post-CLAD survival, independent of CLAD phenotype, azithromycin treatment, and relevant covariates. Azithromycin treatment improved survival in patients with high bacterial burden but had negligible impact on patients with low or moderate burden. Lung bacterial burden was positively associated with CLAD-associated cytokines, and ex vivo growth of P. aeruginosa was augmented in BAL fluid from transplant recipients with CLAD. Conclusions In recipients of lung transplants with chronic rejection, increased lung bacterial burden is an independent risk factor for mortality and predicts clinical response to azithromycin. Lung bacterial dysbiosis is associated with alveolar inflammation and may be promoted by underlying lung allograft dysfunction.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".