MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

ABO-Incompatible Lung Transplantation in an Infant

2011· article· en· W1543840576 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Hartmut Grasemann, Marc de Perrot, Glenda N. Bendiak, P. Cox, Glen S. Van Arsdell, Shaf Keshavjee, Melinda Solomon

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Transplantation · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTransplantation: Methods and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSickKids FoundationUniversity Health NetworkHospital for Sick Children
FundersHospital for Sick Children
KeywordsMedicineABO blood group systemLung transplantationTransplantationLungIntensive care medicineImmunologySurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Waitlist mortality continues to be a limiting factor for all solid-organ transplant programs. Strategies that could improve this situation should be considered. We report the first ABO-incompatible lung transplantation in an infant. The recipient infant was ABO blood group A1 and the donor group B. The recipient was diagnosed with surfactant protein B deficiency, which is a fatal condition and lung transplantation is the only definitive therapy. At 32 days of age, a bilateral lung transplantation from a donation after cardiac death (DCD) donor was performed. Intraoperative plasma exchange was the only preparatory procedure performed. No further interventions were required as the recipient isohemagglutinins were negative before transplant and have remained negative to date. At 6 months posttransplant, the recipient is at home, thriving, with normal development. This outcome suggests that ABO-incompatible lung transplantation is feasible in infants, providing another option to offer life-saving lung transplantation in this age range.

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)0.000
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: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.300 · 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 designCase report
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations44
Published2011
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of TransplantationSame topicTransplantation: Methods and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207