Focal peritubular capillary C4d deposition in acute rejection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Diffuse peritubular capillary (PTC) C4d deposition has been shown to be associated with relatively poor graft outcome. The significance of focal PTC C4d staining in the early post-transplant period is uncertain. METHODS: Sixty-five biopsies from 53 patients with acute rejection were graded (Banff '97 criteria), stained for C4d, monocytes and T cells, and divided into three groups according to PTC C4d: (i) focal C4d (F) (14 biopsies, 14 patients), (ii) diffuse C4d (D) (23 biopsies, 15 patients) and (iii) no C4d (N) (28 biopsies, 24 patients). The three groups were compared with respect to a variety of biopsy and clinical parameters including outcome. RESULTS: The incidence of transplant glomerulitis and glomerular monocyte infiltration were significantly greater in F (64% and 2.0+/-2.0) and D (57% and 3.4+/-2.0) than in N (11% and 0.2+/-0.2). A significantly higher proportion of F (93%) demonstrated acute cellular rejection (Banff '97 grade > or = 1A) than did D (35%). The F and D groups included significantly more females (50 and 67%, respectively) than did N (21%). The percentage of patients with a second or third transplant was higher in F (29%) and D (40%) than in N (8%) (P = 0.0589). The proportion of patients with glomerular filtration rate < 30 ml/min at 12, 24 and 48 months was higher in the D and F groups than in the N, and there was a statistically significant increasing trend in odds of this outcome occurring at 48 months across the three groups (D > F > N group) (P = 0.0416). CONCLUSION: The results suggest that the biopsy findings and clinical course in patients with focal PTC C4d staining are similar to those associated with diffuse C4d.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".