Randomized trial of routine versus on-demand intraoperative extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in lung transplantation: A feasibility study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In most centers, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is the preferred means to provide cardiopulmonary support during lung transplantation. However, there is controversy about whether intraoperative venoarterial (VA) ECMO should be used routinely or selectively. A randomized controlled trial is the best way to address this controversy. In this publication, we describe a feasibility study to assess the practicality of a protocol comparing routine versus selective VA-ECMO during lung transplantation. This prospective, single-center, randomized controlled trial screened all patients undergoing lung transplantation. Exclusion criteria include retransplantation, multiorgan transplantation, and cases where ECMO is mandatory. We determined that the trial would be feasible if we could recruit 19 participants over 6 months with less than 10% protocol violations. Based on the completed feasibility study, we conclude that the protocol is feasible and safe, giving us the impetus to pursue a multicenter trial with little risk of failure due to low recruitment.
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
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".