Donor Lungs’ Procurement Implementation with Ex Vivo Lung Perfusion in a Low-Volume Lung Transplant Center
Bibliographic record
Abstract
(1) Background: Ex Vivo Lung Perfusion (EVLP) is a technique designed to assess and recondition marginal lungs, potentially expanding the donor pool and improving transplant outcomes (2) Methods: This retrospective study evaluated lung transplantation outcomes after EVLP. Donor lungs were assessed using the Toronto protocol, with data on hemodynamics, gas exchange, and perfusion parameters collected and analyzed. Post-transplant complications and survival rates were also examined. (3) Results: Over five years, 17 EVLP procedures were performed. Despite an improvement in lung function, 47% of donor lungs were rejected after EVLP. EVLP-reconditioned lungs showed comparable survival rates to standard transplants, but complications like sepsis and primary graft dysfunction (PGD) occurred. (4) Conclusions: EVLP shows promise in expanding the donor organ availability and reducing PGD, but nearly half of the lungs assessed were rejected. Further research is necessary to optimize EVLP and address potential complications like lung injury and sepsis.
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 | 0.003 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".