MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6964005244 · doi:10.25373/ctsnet.15149610.v1

Normothermic Ex vivo Lung Perfusion: Toronto Protocol

2021· other· en· W6964005244 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2021
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLungEx vivoLung transplantationTransplantationPerfusion

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The advent of normothermic ex vivo lung perfusion (EVLP) has allowed for significant increases in lung transplant volume, allowing for the recovery of lungs deemed unsuitable for transplantation. At our center, lung transplant activity has more than doubled within the last decade since the introduction of EVLP into our program. Here, we outline some of the important aspects of the Toronto EVLP protocol within a narrative video. References Cypel, M., Yeung, J. C., Hirayama, S., Rubacha, M., Fischer, S., Anraku, M., Sato, M., Harwood, S., Pierre, A., Waddell, T. K., de Perrot, M., Liu, M., & Keshavjee, S. (2008). Technique for prolonged normothermic ex vivo lung perfusion. The Journal of heart and lung transplantation : the official publication of the International Society for Heart Transplantation, 27(12), 1319–1325. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healun.2008.09.003 Cypel, M., Yeung, J. C., Liu, M., Anraku, M., Chen, F., Karolak, W., Sato, M., Laratta, J., Azad, S., Madonik, M., Chow, C. W., Chaparro, C., Hutcheon, M., Singer, L. G., Slutsky, A. S., Yasufuku, K., de Perrot, M., Pierre, A. F., Waddell, T. K., & Keshavjee, S. (2011). Normothermic ex vivo lung perfusion in clinical lung transplantation. The New England journal of medicine, 364(15), 1431–1440. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1014597

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.092
Threshold uncertainty score0.308

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0920.021

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.291 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFigshareFrench-language works237,207