Isolated Endarteritis and Kidney Transplant Survival
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Isolated endarteritis of kidney transplants is increasingly recognized. Notably, microarray studies revealed absence of immunologic signatures of rejection in most isolated endarteritis biopsy samples. We investigated if isolated endarteritis responds to rejection treatment and affects kidney transplant survival. We retrospectively enrolled recipients of kidney transplant who underwent biopsies between 1999 and 2011 at seven American and Canadian centers. Exclusion criteria were recipients were blood group-incompatible or crossmatch-positive or had C4d-positive biopsy samples. After biopsy confirmation, patients were divided into three groups: isolated endarteritis (n=103), positive controls (type I acute T cell-mediated rejection with endarteritis; n=101), and negative controls (no diagnostic rejection; n=103). Primary end points were improved kidney function after rejection treatment and transplant failure. Mean decrease in serum creatinine from biopsy to 1 month after rejection treatment was 132.6 µmol/L (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 78.7 to 186.5) in patients with isolated endarteritis, 96.4 µmol/L (95% CI, 48.6 to 143.2) in positive controls (P=0.32), and 18.6 µmol/L (95% CI, 1.8 to 35.4) in untreated negative controls (P<0.001). Functional improvement after rejection treatment occurred in 80% of patients with isolated endarteritis and 81% of positive controls (P=0.72). Over the median 3.2-year follow-up period, kidney transplant survival rates were 79% in patients with isolated endarteritis, 79% in positive controls, and 91% in negative controls (P=0.01). In multivariate analysis, isolated endarteritis was associated with an adjusted 3.51-fold (95% CI, 1.16 to 10.67; P=0.03) risk for transplant failure. These data indicate that isolated endarteritis is an independent risk factor for kidney transplant failure.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".