Multidisciplinary management of adult patients with chylothorax: a consensus statement
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it