Comparative incidence of rejection occurring in small intestinal and colonic mucosal biopsies of patients undergoing intestinal transplantation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To compare the diagnosis of acute cellular rejection (ACR) based on biopsies (Bx) performed simultaneously in the small bowel (SB) and colonic grafts (paired Bx) after intestinal transplantation (ITx). METHODS AND RESULTS: Retrospective study including all ITx with colon at Mount Sinai Hospital between 2009 and 2014. Paired Bx were reviewed blindly by two experienced gastrointestinal (GI) pathologists and were graded based on the VIII International Small Bowel Transplant Symposium Consensus criteria, with minor modifications for evaluation of colon biopsies. Each Bx was classified as negative or positive for ACR. Cohen's kappa statistic was used to quantify the interpathologist agreement and the agreement between SB and colonic Bx for the diagnosis of ACR. Fifteen patients underwent 51 paired Bx. The strength of agreement for the grade of ACR in the SB biopsies (kappa = 0.62) and the colonic biopsies (kappa = 0.65) was good. The inter-rater agreement was better for Bx negative for ACR and for higher grades of ACR. Overall, 74.5% of paired Bx were concordant for the presence or absence of ACR. The strength of agreement for the presence or absence of ACR between the SB and colonic Bx (kappa = 0.44) was moderate. Two cases of severe ACR were restricted to the SB allograft. CONCLUSIONS: Paired Bx in the SB and the colon are usually in agreement regarding the presence or the absence of ACR. However, colonic Bx alone may not suffice to exclude ACR following ITx. With minor modifications, the histopathological criteria of the SB may be adaptable to the colonic allograft.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".