International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation Consensus Statement on the Referral and Selection of Pediatric Lung Transplant Candidates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Children with advanced lung diseases are eligible to be considered as potential candidates for lung transplantation around the world. The timing of referral, evaluation, determination of candidacy, and listing of candidates poses challenges and ethical dilemmas for pediatric care providers. To address these challenges, the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation appointed an international panel of expert members to review the literature, to consider recent advances in the management of advanced pediatric lung diseases, and to generate the first consensus guidelines on the referral criteria and selection of pediatric lung transplant (LTx) candidates. This consensus document is meant to assist pediatric care providers throughout the world caring for children with advanced lung diseases to identify potential candidates for LTx, to optimize the timing of the referral of these patients to LTx centers, and to provide transplant centers with a framework for the evaluation and selection of children as candidates.
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 | 0.068 | 0.081 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".