Effect of recipient sensitization (peak PRA) on graft outcome in haploidentical living related kidney transplants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the influence of pre-transplant recipient sensitization on the outcome of 1-haploidentical live related donor (LRD) kidney transplants. METHOD: We reviewed 141 consecutive cyclosporine-treated adult haploidentical first transplants for which panel reactive antibody (PRA) levels were available. Patients were divided into three groups according to their peak PRA levels: group I, PRA = 0 (n = 97); group II, PRA = 1-50% (n = 24); and group III, PRA = 51-100% (n = 20). RESULTS: Differences in PRA were associated with significant differences in short- and longer-term graft survival, unrelated to patient survival. Graft survival at 1, 3, and 5 yr was only 74, 40, and 27% in group III, compared to 92, 87, and 52% in group II, and 96, 91, and 85% in group I (p < 0.001). Increasing PRA was associated with shorter time-to-graft failure. In group III, 20% lost their transplant from acute rejection in the first 6 months, versus 4% in group II and 3% in group I (p < 0.01). Graft survival in group II diverged from that of group I only after 3 yr, due to an increase in loss from chronic rejection. Hospitalization was longer in group III, in association with a significantly higher incidence of acute rejection during the first 3 months after transplantation (p < 0.02). Serum creatinine was higher in sensitized than nonsensitized patients at all time points. CONCLUSIONS: Sensitization has a significant negative impact on the outcome of haploidentical LRD kidney transplants. Sensitized potential recipients and their potential donors should be aware of this in arriving at informed decision-making for transplantation. These patients may benefit from more sensitive cross-match testing, more intense or more novel immunosuppression, or immunomodulation to modify their immune responsiveness.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".