ArticleJHLT open2026
Inactive waitlist phenotypes and failure to survive to lung transplantation.
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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Inactive waitlist status is common in lung transplantation, but the extent to which distinct inactivity phenotypes identify candidates at risk of failing to survive to transplantation is uncertain. Methods: We analyzed adult U.S. lung transplant candidates listed from January 1, 2005, through March 31, 2026, using OPTN STAR files. Inactivity was characterized by cumulative inactive days, first inactivation reason, and cycling. Logistic models evaluated death or removal for being too sick; sequential severity adjustment, multiple imputation, 90- and 180-day landmark competing-risk analyses, and exclusion of initially inactive candidates assessed robustness. Results: Among 56,268 candidates, 16,301 (29.0%) experienced inactivity. Compared with candidate choice, temporary too-sick inactivation had the strongest association with death or too-sick removal in the original model (OR, 5.72; 95% CI, 4.88-6.71) and after full severity adjustment with multiple imputation (OR, 4.40; 95% CI, 3.74-5.17). At the 90-day landmark, adjusted subdistribution hazards increased across nonzero burden groups (sHRs, 1.25-1.45). At 180 days, burden greater than 10 days remained associated with subsequent risk (sHRs, 1.21-1.45), whereas greater than 0-10 days was not. Excluding 1354 candidates initially listed inactive did not materially change the too-sick estimate (OR, 5.83; 95% CI, 4.94-6.88). Conclusions: Inactive status represents heterogeneous clinical and administrative phenotypes. Temporary too-sick inactivation remained strongly associated with failure to survive to transplantation after extensive severity adjustment, whereas landmark analyses separately demonstrated that sustained early inactive burden was associated with subsequent risk.
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.