A MAR‐like antibody in a DC<sup>W</sup>e/DC<sup>W</sup>e person
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: MAR (RH51), a high-incidence antigen in the Rh blood group system, is absent from RBCs with a double dose of CW or CX or a single dose each of CW and CX antigens, as well as from rare Rh phenotypes including D- - and Rh(null). The MAR antigen is associated with the presence of Ala36 and Gln41 on the RhCe protein. The original example of anti-MAR, described in 1994, was made by a DCWe/DCXe woman. It was possible that the antibody directed against a high-incidence antigen in the Rh system made by a DCXe/DCXe woman (CM) in 1983 was anti-MAR. CASE REPORT: A 52-year-old, multiply transfused, white woman (CJ) with pre-existing anti-c, -E, and -Jk(a) presented for preoperative work-up for her fifth open heart procedure. The strength of the reaction of her RBCs with anti-CW suggested a double dose of CW antigen. Her serum, which unexpectedly was strongly reactive with c-, E-, Jk(a-) RBCs by PEG indirect antiglobulin test, was incubated with E-c-, Jk(a-) RBCs, and an eluate was prepared. This eluate reacted 3+ with E-c-, Jk(a-) RBCs but did not react with Rh(null) (n = 5), - - (3), DCW- (2), Dc- (1), or DCWe/DCWe (1) RBCs. Two related DCXe/DCXe and two unrelated DCWe/DCXe RBC samples were weakly agglutinated. The patient's RBCs were negative with the original anti-MAR but reacted as strongly as the positive control RBCs with the antibody made by the DCXe/DCXe person. CONCLUSION: This is the first example of a MAR-like antibody made by a DCWe/DCWe woman. The specificity cannot be called anti-MAR, because some MAR-negative samples react, albeit weakly. The original anti-MAR, made by a DCWe/DCXe woman, did not react with DCWe/DCWe, DCWe/DCXe, or DCXe/DCXe RBCs. It is apparent that the specificity of "anti-MAR" differs slightly, depending on the CW/CX status of the antibody maker.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".