Worldwide practices in pulmonary function test reporting after lung transplantation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Spirometry interpretation after lung transplantation (LTx) is complex, requiring a clear understanding of reference values and normal thresholds globally. Abnormal values are typically based on general population reference standards. Methods: In April 2025, a 10-question online survey was conducted among International Society of Heart and Lung Transplantation-members to determine the reference values and normal thresholds used worldwide for post-transplant spirometry interpretation. Results: Responses from 58 centers, covering 22,080 lung transplant recipients and representing ∼40% of global transplant activity, were analyzed. Most patients (63%) were followed in the United States or Canada. Global lung initiative (GLI) reference was used for 60%, with 47% using the race-neutral version. The lower limit of normal (LLN) was reported in only 19% of pulmonary function assessments. Regional differences were noted in obstruction definition and impairment grading. Conclusions: While GLI-reference values are widely adopted, 40% of centers have yet to implement them, and LLN remains underutilized in spirometry reporting after LTx.
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 | 0.040 | 0.078 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".