Priorities for lung transplantation research: a James Lind Alliance priority-setting partnership between patients, caregivers, and clinicians in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study employed the James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership methodology to identify and prioritize research priorities in lung transplantation through engagement of pre- and post-lung transplant patients, caregivers, and clinicians in Canada. An initial survey collected 490 questions from 204 respondents, which were collated into 117 summary questions. After removing duplicates and conducting evidence checks, 25 verified uncertainties were discussed at a final workshop, resulting in a consensus-based Top 10 list of research priorities. Key priorities addressed the need to improve immunosuppression regimens, patient education, lung allograft dysfunction, and donor lung availability. This first-of-its-kind initiative in lung transplantation created a stakeholder-driven research agenda that better aligns future research with patient needs. The findings establish a foundation for more patient-centered lung transplantation 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 | 0.196 | 0.146 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.039 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.027 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".