Human ABO Blood Group Is Important in Survival and Function of Porcine Working Hearts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pig organs express alphaGal antigen and thus are hyperacutely rejected if perfused by human blood. Human B/A antigens are similar to pig alphaGal antigen, suggesting that the corresponding antibodies may cross-react. Our purpose was to determine if there is a human ABO blood-group difference in porcine-human xenotransplantation. Plasma from six A, five B, seven AB, and six O individuals pooled by blood group were tested in an ex-vivo porcine working heart model. Blood-group A plasma-perfused hearts survived 20 +/- 14 min (n = 5), B 241 +/- 9 min (n = 3), AB 151 +/- 37 min (n = 5), and O 9 +/- 1 min (n = 8). A and O were different (p < 0.001) from B and AB. Function was significantly better in group B. Edema accumulation and creatine kinase change was highest in A and O. All groups had comparable levels of anti-alphaGal antibody, as well as comparable perfusion and operative conditions. Multivariate linear regression analysis showed the anti-B antibody levels to be predictive of survival (p < 0.001). At higher plasma concentrations, hearts perfused with B plasma survived longer (p = 0.01) than AB (218 +/- 45 min, n = 4 vs. 6 +/- 0 min, n = 3). These results suggest a human ABO blood-group difference in porcine-to-human xenotransplantation, which may be mediated by the anti-A and anti-B antibodies.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".