Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The practice of offering ABO-incompatible (ABOi) heart transplantation during infancy was initiated based on the rationale that infants are at the highest risk of dying while waiting for a transplant, yet are at low risk of hyperacute antibody-mediated rejection due to immunologic immaturity. Since the first report of intentional ABOi heart transplantation a decade ago, its success has been corroborated in numerous reports and the practice has been widely adopted. This review summarizes clinical results in reports of ABOi transplantation and the evolution of ABOi listing strategies, as well as evidence of immune tolerance after ABOi transplantation. RECENT FINDINGS: Recent reports have documented comparable midterm and long-term clinical outcomes in ABOi and ABO-compatible (ABOc) heart transplant recipients in terms of survival and posttransplant complications. Despite successful outcomes, however, there are obstacles to widespread implementation of ABOi transplantation in the USA and in some European centers. The notable deficiency in development of antibody production to donor A/B antigens following ABOi transplantation described in early reports has been corroborated, with some exceptions. Potential advantages of ABOi transplantation are emerging as well as innovative strategies that may allow ABOi heart transplantation beyond the age of infancy. SUMMARY: ABOi heart transplantation is one example in which immunologic immaturity has been exploited to the advantage of pediatric transplant recipients. In-depth exploration of transplant-related immunobiology in the young may reveal further opportunities.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".