Multicenter Experience of ABO-Incompatible Pediatric Cardiac Transplantation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although ABO blood group incompatible cardiac transplantation in neonates and infants reduces waiting list mortality without compromising outcome, the technique has not been adopted by all centers, and to date Toronto remains the only center to have published results from a large case series. We present a review of ABO-incompatible heart transplantation in the United Kingdom (UK) where current recipient selection criteria differ somewhat from those used in the United States (US) and Canada. Between February 2000 and November 2006, 21 ABO-incompatible cardiac transplants were performed in children aged 2-40 months (median 10.0). Immunosuppression followed standard regimens. Pretransplant donor-specific isohemagglutinins of >1:4, (the UNOS cutoff), were present in five patients and reduced by plasma exchange. After transplantation, 19/21 recipients demonstrated persisting deficiency of donor-specific isohemagglutinins. Significant donor-specific isohemagglutinins levels were detected repeatedly in 2/21 recipients who have shown no clinical or biopsy evidence of rejection. All recipients survive without retransplantation and there have been no episodes of humoral rejection. We conclude it is possible for other centers to replicate the excellent results achieved in Toronto and that ABO-incompatible transplantation may be performed successfully in some patients beyond infancy with established isohemagglutinin production providing preoperative antibody removing strategies are used.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".