MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Human ABO Blood Group Is Important in Survival and Function of Porcine Working Hearts

2003· article· en· W2084608600 on OpenAlexafffund
Rizwan A. Manji, Jacqueline S. Manji, Arvind Koshal, Gregory S. Korbutt, Ray V. Rajotte

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Transplantation · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicXenotransplantation and immune response
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersUniversity of Alberta
KeywordsXenotransplantationABO blood group systemAntibodyMedicineAndrologyAntigenPerfusionMiniature swineTransplantationInternal medicineImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pig organs express αGal antigen and thus are hyperacutely rejected if perfused by human blood. Human B/A antigens are similar to pig αGal 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-αGal 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 Pig organs express αGal antigen and thus are hyperacutely rejected if perfused by human blood. Human B/A antigens are similar to pig αGal 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-αGal 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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.383
Threshold uncertainty score0.370

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.253 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of TransplantationSame topicXenotransplantation and immune responseFrench-language works237,207