MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Correlation between circulating endothelial progenitor cell function and allograft rejection in heart transplant patients

2010· article· en· W1632819342 on OpenAlexaff
Chethan Sathya, Rohit Sheshgiri, Jessica L. Prodger, L. Tumiati, Diego Delgado, Heather J. Ross, Vivek Rao

Bibliographic record

VenueTransplant International · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTransplantation: Methods and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsToronto General HospitalUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEverolimusProgenitor cellEndothelial progenitor cellHeart transplantationTransplantationInternal medicineCardiologyUrologyGastroenterologyStem cell

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Endothelial progenitor cells (EPCs) may contribute to rejection and cardiac allograft vasculopathy (CAV) by being intrinsically involved in the rejection process and causing neointimal hyperplasia. The mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitors (mTORi), sirolimus and everolimus, have been demonstrated to attenuate the progression of CAV and are cytotoxic to EPC. Thus, one mechanism by which mTORi may protect against CAV is by altering EPC function. Our study measured circulating EPC function and correlated this assessment with rejection episodes in heart transplant (HT) recipients. In addition, we examined the effect of mTORi on EPCs. Patients who received HT at our institution between 1995 and 2007 were included and stratified by International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation (ISHLT) rejection grade. Group A (n = 13) consisted of patients with at least one moderate/severe rejection episode (grade > or = 2). Group B (n = 28) patients had no moderate/severe episodes (grade < 2). Patients were also independently stratified based on exposure as mTORi (n = 21) vs. non mTORi (n = 20). To assess EPC functional capacity, we counted the number of colony-forming units (CFU) of EPCs in peripheral blood samples from HT recipients. There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics between groups. The mean EPC-CFU counts/plate for group A (rejecting) were 30 +/- 6 vs.16 +/- 3 for group B (nonrejecting) (P = 0.03). The EPC-CFU counts/plate in the mTORi group (15 +/- 3) were lower compared to the non mTORi (27 +/- 5) group (P = 0.04). We found that EPC colony-forming capacity was higher in HT patients who experienced moderate/severe rejection episodes. Patients on mTORi showed a reduced EPC colony count consistent with our previous findings of EPC cytotoxicity. Detection of circulating EPC function post-transplant may reliably identify patient risk level for subsequent allograft rejection and allow for appropriate adjustments to immunosuppression. Converting to mTORi therapy may reduce EPC function and provide a novel mechanism to prevent rejection and possibly attenuate the development of CAV.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.666

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations21
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransplant InternationalSame topicTransplantation: Methods and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207