MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Complement Factor H Deficiency in Acute Allograft Glomerulopathy and Post-Transplant Hemolytic Uremic Syndrome

2004· article· en· W1709782078 on OpenAlexaff
Marie‐Chantal Fortin, Walter Schürch, Héloïse Cardinal, Marie‐Josée Hébert

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Transplantation · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicComplement system in diseases
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThrombotic microangiopathyMedicineGlomerulopathyMicroangiopathyImmunologyComplement systemPathophysiologyPathologyKidneyInternal medicineGlomerulonephritisImmune systemEndocrinologyDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Acute allograft glomerulopathy (AAG) is a distinct form of allograft rejection characterized by cytotoxic T-cell-mediated injury to the renal glomerular and arteriolar endothelium. Acute allograft glomerulopathy is characterized by mononuclear cell infiltration of glomerular capillary tufts in association with endothelial cell hypertrophy and injury. Intra-glomerular thrombi have been described in AAG, suggesting that overlapping features of AAG and post-transplant thrombotic microangiopathy (TMA) may coexist. We present a case suggesting that complement factor H deficiency, a known hereditary risk factor for TMA, may also favor development of AAG. We discuss the potential implications of factor H deficiency in the pathophysiology of renal allograft microvascular injury, leukocyte infiltration and formation of intraglomerular platelet thrombi. We propose that unopposed complement activation is a risk factor for both immune and nonimmune forms of microvascular injuries in renal allografts.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 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

Citations11
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of TransplantationSame topicComplement system in diseasesFrench-language works237,207