Phenotypes of antibody-mediated rejection in organ transplants
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Antibody-mediated hyperacute rejection was the first rejection phenotype observed in human organ transplants. This devastating phenotype was eliminated by reliable crossmatch technologies. Since then, the focus was on T-cell-mediated rejection and de novo donor-specific antibodies were considered an epiphenomenon of cognate T-cell activation. The immune theory was that controlling the T-cell response would entail elimination of antibody-mediated rejection (ABMR). With modern immunosuppressive drugs, T-cell-mediated rejection is essentially treatable. However, this did not prevent ABMR from emerging as a significant phenotype in all types of organ transplants. It became obvious that both rejection types require distinct treatment and thus reliable diagnosis. This is the current challenge. ABMR, depending on stage, grade, time course, organ type or prior treatment, can present with a wide spectrum of phenotypes. This review summarizes the current diagnostic consensus for ABMR, describes unmet needs and challenges in diagnostics, and proposes new approaches for consideration.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it