C4d Deposition in Acute Rejection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Peritubular capillary deposition of C4d has been demonstrated to be associated with both acute humoral and vascular rejection and increased graft loss. Whether it is an independent predictor of long-term graft survival rates is uncertain. The biopsies (n = 126) from all patients (n = 93) with a tissue diagnosis of acute rejection that were performed between July 1, 1995, and December 31, 1997, were classified according to Cooperative Clinical Trials in Transplantation (CCTT) criteria. Fresh frozen tissue was immunostained for C4d. There were 58 patients with CCTT type I (interstitial) rejection and 35 with CCTT type II (vascular) rejection. For 34 patients, at least one biopsy exhibited peritubular C4d deposition (C4d+ group). The C4d+ group had proportionately more female patients (P = 0.003), more patients with high (>30%) panel-reactive antibody levels (P = 0.024), more patients with resistance to conventional antirejection therapy (P = 0.010), and fewer patients with postrejection hypertension (P = 0.021) and exhibited a greater rate of graft loss (38 versus 7%, P = 0.001). Peritubular C4d deposition was associated with significantly lower graft survival rates in the CCTT type I rejection group (P = 0.003) and the CCTT type II rejection group (P = 0.003). Multivariate analyses demonstrated that peritubular C4d deposition (P = 0.0002), donor age (P = 0.0002), cold ischemic time (P = 0.0211), and HLA matches (P = 0.0460) were significant independent determinants of graft survival rates. Peritubular C4d deposition is a significant predictor of graft survival rates and is independent of histologic rejection type and a variety of clinical prognostic factors.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".