ArticleJHLT open2026
Research priorities in chronic lung allograft dysfunction: A machine learning-assisted bibliometric analysis.
Article in JHLT open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
20 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Chronic lung allograft dysfunction (CLAD), the leading cause of death beyond year one post-transplant, encompasses bronchiolitis obliterans syndrome (BOS), restrictive allograft syndrome (RAS), and mixed allograft syndrome (MAS), formalized by the 2019 ISHLT consensus. How thematic priorities have evolved and whether research effort tracks phenotype burden have not been systematically examined. Methods: From 1,851 CLAD-related papers (Web of Science, 1990-2025) assembled after AI-assisted relevance screening (validated against blinded expert adjudication), machine learning-based topic modeling using a biomedical language model identified thematic clusters; temporal trajectories were classified by statistical trend analysis; and a phenotype representation index (RI = corpus proportion ÷ clinical prevalence) was computed against 2 reference cohorts with bootstrap confidence intervals. Results: Twenty-four thematic clusters were identified (13 declining, 8 stable, 3 rising, 1 emerging). Rising topics included DSA/antibody-mediated rejection (119 papers), restrictive phenotype classification (126 papers), and translational CLAD pathogenesis (143 papers), reflecting momentum predating the 2019 consensus. Donor-derived cell-free DNA was the sole emerging topic (21 papers). Among 950 phenotype-focused papers, BOS was proportionally represented (RI 1.13 vs Leuven; 1.05 vs Toronto). RAS representation was denominator-dependent (RI 0.75-0.99). MAS was substantially under-represented in both cohorts (RI 0.33 vs Leuven; 0.41 vs Toronto). Conclusions: Transformer-based topic modeling reveals a directional shift toward immunological mechanisms and phenotype-specific research that classical keyword approaches cannot resolve. Research effort is broadly proportionate to clinical burden for BOS but substantially below for MAS, a gap possibly attributable to pathophysiological differences, diagnostic complexity, limited case volume, and recency of phenotype formalization that multicenter studies may address.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.