14th International HLA and Immunogenetics Workshop: Report on the Prospective Chronic Rejection Project
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
An international collaborative study of 45 transplant centers was undertaken at the 14th International HLA (human leukocyte antigen) and Immunogenetics Workshop to see if HLA antibodies detected posttransplant are predictive of chronic graft failure. With the newly developed assay, MICA (major histocompatibility complex class I-related chain A) antibodies were also measured and their effect analyzed. Total of 5219 sera from patients who were more than 6 months posttransplant with functioning graft were tested for HLA antibodies by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, flow cytometry, or Luminex. HLA antibodies were found in 27.2% of kidney patients, 23.6% in the liver, 52.7% in the heart, and 21.7% in the lung. The method of antibody testing did not have a marked influence on the frequency of antibodies detected. MICA antibodies were detected in 15% of kidney patients, 30% of heart patients, and 31% of liver patients. Among 948 kidney patients who had HLA antibodies, 7.3% had rejected their graft within 1 year of testing, compared with 1.7% in 2615 patients without HLA antibodies (P= 0.8 x 10(-17)). Death occurred in 1.4% of total kidney patients and did not correlate to the presence of antibodies. We conclude that patients with posttransplant HLA antibodies indeed have a higher rate of chronic graft failure and that posttransplant antibodies are predictive of chronic rejection.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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