MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2334651373 · doi:10.1097/mot.0000000000000104

Acceptable mismatching at the class II epitope level

2014· review· en· W2334651373 on OpenAlex
Chris Wiebe, Peter Nickerson

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Organ Transplantation · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRenal Transplantation Outcomes and Treatments
Canadian institutionsCanadian Blood ServicesDiagnostic Services ManitobaUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEpitopeImmunogenicityHuman leukocyte antigenAntigenImmunologyMedicineAntibodyComputational biologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To summarize the evidence concerning human leukocyte antigen (HLA) epitope mismatch analysis as a means to predict donor-specific antibody (DSA) development and allograft survival. RECENT FINDINGS: HLA epitope mismatch analysis outperforms traditional whole molecule antigen mismatch for predicting the risk of de-novo DSA development. By analyzing the number of epitope mismatches for a given donor-recipient pair, thresholds have been identified to stratify patients into those at high or low risk of de-novo DSA development. Epitope specificity assignment in patients who develop de-novo DSA compared with controls who do not provides an opportunity to study the relative immunogenicity of mismatched HLA epitopes. SUMMARY: Recognizing that de-novo DSA is a major cause of graft loss, HLA epitope mismatch analysis is a strategy to minimize de-novo DSA development and improve long-term 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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.937
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.153
GPT teacher head0.419
Teacher spread0.266 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it