Non-Complement–Binding De Novo Donor-Specific Anti-HLA Antibodies and Kidney Allograft Survival
Bibliographic record
Abstract
C1q-binding ability may indicate the clinical relevance of de novo donor-specific anti-HLA antibodies (DSA). This study investigated the incidence and risk factors for the appearance of C1q-binding de novo DSA and their long-term impact. Using Luminex Single Antigen Flow Bead assays, 346 pretransplant nonsensitized kidney recipients were screened at 2 and 5 years after transplantation for de novo DSA, which was followed when positive by a C1q Luminex assay. At 2 and 5 years, 12 (3.5%) and eight (2.5%) patients, respectively, had C1q-binding de novo DSA. De novo DSA mean fluorescence intensity >6237 and >10,000 at 2 and 5 years, respectively, predicted C1q binding. HLA mismatches and cyclosporine A were independently associated with increased risk of C1q-binding de novo DSA. When de novo DSA were analyzed at 2 years, the 5-year death-censored graft survival was similar between patients with C1q-nonbinding de novo DSA and those without de novo DSA, but was lower for patients with C1q-binding de novo DSA (P=0.003). When de novo DSA were analyzed at 2 and 5 years, the 10-year death-censored graft survival was lower for patients with C1q-nonbinding de novo DSA detected at both 2 and 5 years (P<0.001) and for patients with C1q-binding de novo DSA (P=0.002) than for patients without de novo DSA. These results were partially confirmed in two validation cohorts. In conclusion, C1q-binding de novo DSA are associated with graft loss occurring quickly after their appearance. However, the long-term persistence of C1q-nonbinding de novo DSA could lead to lower graft survival.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".