ABO‐incompatible allotransplantation as a basis for clinical xenotransplantation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The 8th Congress of the International Xenotransplantation Association (IXA), held in Goteborg in September, 2005, immediately followed the 2nd International Symposium on ABO-Incompatibility in Transplantation, both congresses organized by Michael Breimer and Lennart Rydberg. The Proceedings of the Symposium on ABO-Incompatibility in Transplantation have been published (Xenotransplantation 2006; 13 (2)). The present paper provides an overview of a workshop held at the 8th Congress of the IXA, and highlights the immunological concepts emerging from ABO-incompatible allotransplants and discusses them in relation to xenotransplantation. Using specified immunomodulatory protocols, ABO-incompatible solid organ allotransplantation has become a clinical reality for a small number of patients over the last two decades. ABO-incompatible adult kidney and infant heart transplants have similar patient and graft survivals as their ABO-compatible counterparts. In contrast, ABO-incompatibility is present in up to 30% of all patients receiving hematopoietic stem cell transplants in the absence of specific immunomodulation, without affecting overall survival. Consequently, ABO-incompatible solid organ transplants and hematopoietic stem cell transplants may serve as in vivo models to elucidate the immunological mechanisms of accommodation and/or tolerance in the clinical setting. Because of similarities in the immunological hurdles that need to be overcome, knowledge obtained from ABO-incompatible allotransplantation might further promote advances in the field of xenotransplantation. The similarities and differences between ABO-incompatible allotransplantation and xenotransplantation are discussed.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".