MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Banff 2003 Meeting Report: New Diagnostic Insights and Standards

2004· article· en· W1998078414 on OpenAlexaffabout
Lorraine C. Racusen, Philip F. Halloran, Kim Solez

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Transplantation · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRenal Transplantation Outcomes and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta HospitalUniversity of Alberta
FundersPfizer
KeywordsMedicineConsensus conferencePathologyClinical trialImmunologyIntensive care medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Seventh Banff Conference on Allograft Pathology was held June 14-18, 2003 in Aberdeen, Scotland representing the latest iteration of the international consensus meeting, which develops worldwide standards for interpretation of allograft biopsies. The meeting is an important force behind standardized slide interpretation to strengthen endpoints in international clinical trials. Of participants polled 87% reported that they would alter clinical practice as a direct consequence of the meeting and its content. Advances were made in many areas including tubulitis mechanisms, real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) gene analysis and microarrays in rejection diagnosis, tolerance/accommodation/immunomodulation, the role of monocytes and macrophages in rejection and C4d as a marker for antibody-mediated rejection. A provisional scoring system for peritubular capillary inflammatory cell accumulation in antibody-mediated rejection was presented for testing, as well as plans for a nephrectomy study to determine specificity of vascular lesions of rejection. Future meetings are planned for 2005 (Edmonton), 2007 and 2009, with active ongoing Internet discussion between meetings.

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 score0.289
Threshold uncertainty score0.365

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.277 · 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

Citations247
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of TransplantationSame topicRenal Transplantation Outcomes and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207