MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Patient Tailored Crossmatch, Do Islet Cell and Pancreas Transplants Call for a Different Fit?

2017· article· en· W2614425129 on OpenAlexaffabout
Anne Halpin, Hardeep Floora, Luis Hidalgo, James Shapiro, Peter Senior, David L. Bigam, Patricia Campbell

Bibliographic record

VenueTransplantation · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRenal Transplantation Outcomes and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHuman leukocyte antigenMedicineAntibodyIsletAntigenPancreasDonor specific antibodiesInternal medicineB cellImmunologyGastroenterologyInsulin

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: We have previously demonstrated that pre-formed donor specific antibodies (DSA) to human leukocyte antigens (HLA) are associated with reduced islet function and survival but positive (pos) T and/or B cell flow crossmatch (FCXM) alone is not. (1) Thresholds for FCXM are established using HLA un-sensitized normal samples, which may not reflect serum background reactivity in all patient populations. Here we re-evaluated T and B cell FCXM pos thresholds using un-sensitized kidney and islet cell/pancreas transplant patient sera. Methods: The FCXM method includes incubating pronased treated donor lymphocytes with patient serum followed by detection of IgG antibody on the CD3 labelled donor T and CD19 labelled B cells. (2) Determination of routine positive (pos) threshold was determined by FCXM with 10 cells and 20 sera from un-sensitized normal donors. Patient FCXM data from July 2013 to December 2015 were examined. Calculated panel reactive antibody (cPRA) values were determined using the Canadian cPRA tool. A 0 cPRA was assigned to all patients with no HLA antibody determined by threshold of MFI 1000 and no evidence of reactivity pattern to HLA epitopes. The median channel value (MCV) shift above the negative control serum was determined for all FCXM and results were separated by donor peripheral blood (PBL) or spleen (SPL) source as per routine threshold determination. The mean and standard deviation (SD) were calculated for each patient and cell type. Results: A total of 1417 FCXM were performed; 367 patients had 0 cPRA. The total number of kidney and islet transplant patients was 166 and 63, respectively. The breakdown of PBL vs SPL cell source is shown Table 1. The FCXM pos cut-offs determined using the kidney sera are very similar to those established from normal controls. The pos thresholds calculated using islet/pancreas patient sera are higher. Conclusion: Islet and pancreas patient sera may have inherent, non-HLA specific reactivity to T and B cells, which affects the interpretation of FCXM. The current thresholds may result in false positive T and B FCXM in some islet and pancreas transplant patients. Our data suggest that the crossmatch must be interpreted in the context of HLA antibody specificity information. Higher pos thresholds for FCXM may be required in this patient population however an increased threshold requires validation in the setting of known DSA to ensure that false negative FCXM results do not result.Table 1: Flow cytometry crossmatch Tand B thresholds as established using serum from kidney vs. islet cell/pancreas transplant patients.References: 1. Campbell PM, Salam A, Ryan EA, Senior P, Paty BW, Bigam D, et al. Pretransplant HLA Antibodies Are Associated with Reduced Graft Survival After Clinical Islet Transplantation. American Journal of Transplantation. 2007 May;7(5):1242-8. 2. Liwski R, Pochinco D, Tinckam K, Gebel H, Campbell P, Nickerson P. 30-or: Canada-Wide Evaluation of Rapid Optimized Flow Crossmatch (rofcxm) Protocol. Human Immunology. 2012 October 2;73:26-.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.273 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransplantationSame topicRenal Transplantation Outcomes and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207