MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2088105910 · doi:10.1097/tp.0b013e31823f468c

Accommodation

2011· article· en· W2088105910 on OpenAlexaff
Marlene L. Rose, Lori J. West

Bibliographic record

VenueTransplantation · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRenal Transplantation Outcomes and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaStollery Children's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAllotransplantationABO blood group systemHuman leukocyte antigenImmunologyAntibodyAntigenTransplantationKidney transplantationImmune systemMedicineBiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The term "accommodation" was invoked to describe endothelial cell resistance to antibody-mediated rejection after ABO-incompatible kidney or experimental xenograft transplantation. Currently, there is much interest in how to achieve successful human leukocyte antigen (HLA)-incompatible allograft transplantation in HLA-sensitized patients and how to treat antibody-mediated rejection after ABO-compatible HLA-incompatible allotransplantation. The term "accommodation" is often used interchangeably to describe patients who have donor-specific ABO or HLA alloantibodies in the absence of damage to their allograft. Here, we suggest that there are important differences between the immune responses to protein versus carbohydrate antigens and that graft HLA molecules may respond differently to antibodies (and antibody isotypes) than ABO antigens. Neither the mechanisms nor a phenotype of accommodation have been defined fully. Further research is needed to define mechanisms of both resistance and susceptibility to antibody-mediated injury and to predict under which circumstances allograft accommodation may occur.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.081

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0240.008

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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations13
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransplantationSame topicRenal Transplantation Outcomes and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207