An autoanti‐Kp<sup>b</sup> immunoglobulin M that simulates antigen suppression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients may present with an antibody against a blood group antigen, a negative direct antiglobulin test (DAT), and a null phenotype. Typically, this represents an alloantibody in a null individual. However, on occasion, the antibody disappears coincident with conversion to a positive red blood cell (RBC) phenotype. This has been called antigen loss, antigen suppression, or weakened antigenicity. Herein, a unique serologic profile that mimics this pattern, when in fact antigen loss did not occur, is described. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: RBCs and serum were analyzed using a gel microtyping system and flow cytometry. Genomic DNA was amplified by polymerase chain reaction and sequenced. RESULTS: Initially, an anti-Kp(b) was detected in MTS gel, RBCs typed K-k-Kp(b-), and the DAT was negative for immunoglobulin G (IgG). Later, the anti-Kp(b) disappeared and RBCs phenotyped as K-k+Kp(b+). Analysis of initial specimens by flow cytometry identified an immunoglobulin M (IgM) anti-Kp(b) with a positive IgM-specific DAT; eluates contained an anti-Kp(b) at immediate spin. Supporting the presence of the Kell glycoprotein, RBCs agglutinated with anti-Js(b). Sequencing showed homozygosity for Kp(b) with no mutations surrounding the Kp(b) polymorphism. CONCLUSION: In antigen loss, antibody masking is excluded by a negative DAT. However, because typical DAT reagent does not detect IgM, such reasoning was inaccurate in the current case. In addition, an anti-Kp(b) resulted in RBCs typing k-, even though no anti-k was detected. Overall, this case suggests that an IgM may mask adjacent epitopes and illustrates the potential to mistake a non-IgG autoantibody as antigen loss.
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 | 0.000 | 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".