Multidisciplinary management of adult patients with chylothorax: a consensus statement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The management of chylothorax remains challenging given the limited evidence and significant heterogeneity in practice. In addition, there are no practical guidelines on the optimal approach to manage this complex condition. We convened an international group of 27 experts from 20 institutions across five countries and four specialties (pulmonary, interventional radiology, thoracic surgery and nutrition) with experience and expertise in managing adult patients with chylothorax. We performed a literature and internet search for reports addressing seven clinically relevant PICO (Patient, Intervention, Comparison and Outcome) questions pertaining to the management of adult patients with chylothorax. This consensus statement, consisting of best practice statements based on expert consensus addressing these seven PICO questions, was formulated by a systematic and rigorous process involving the evaluation of published evidence, augmented with provider experience. Panel members participated in the development of the final best practice statements using the modified Delphi technique. Our consensus statement aims to offer guidance in clinical decision making when managing patients with chylothorax while also identifying gaps in knowledge and informing future research.
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 | 0.126 | 0.132 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".