Incidence of tidal expiratory flow limitation in lung transplant patients with and without chronic lung allograft dysfunction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Oscillometry (Osc) is an effort-independent test to monitor changes in respiratory mechanics. Detection of the chronic lung allograft dysfunction (CLAD) may be improved by using Osc in the lung function follow-up. Aims: To identify the tidal expiratory flow limitation (tEFL) via intra-breath Osc (IB-Osc); we hypothesise that tEFL is more common in the CLAD than in the no-CLAD subjects. Methods: IB-Osc measurements at 10 Hz (tremoflo©, Thorasys Inc., Montreal, Canada) were analyzed in 6780 tests from 591 patients receiving lung transplants between 18-11-2017 and 7/12/2022. Criteria of tEFL were based on the reactance (Xrs) values: (a) the expiratory minimum (Xmin,E<2 cmH2O.s/L) and the area of the Xrs vs. flow loop (AXV’<1.5 cmH2O) and (b) visual inspection of these IB-Osc loops for the tEFL pattern characteristic of COPD patients (Lorx et. al. ERJ 49: 1601270, 2017). Results: CLAD was detected in 198 (33.5%) subjects. The tEFL pattern developed in 38 subjects with CLAD (19.2%), whereas it was detected in 31 subjects (8.5%) without CLAD. The values of Xmin,E were slightly lower in the CLAD group than that in the no-CLAD group (Wilcoxon test: p=0.047); the AXV' values were not different (Fig. 1). Conclusion: The high incidence of tEFL in CLAD patients, resembling that of the COPD, may be linked to the small airway mechanical alterations in the bronchiolitis obliterans syndrome. erj;64/suppl_68/PA3461/F1 F1 F1
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".